Connect with us

Opinion

Why Real-Time Transmission of Results from Over 170,000 Polling Units Is an Overreach

Published

on

Tinubu

Tinubu electoral overreach warning urges lawmakers to avoid rigid real-time transmission rules that could destabilise Nigeria’s elections

In 1992, Tinubu won his election under an hostile military junta. In 2003, under the most notorious election rigging machinery in Nigeria’s history, presided over by Obasanjo, the South West was brazenly rigged.

Advertisement

Also read: Electronic Transmission and the Myth of a Silver Bullet

Not because the opposition mocked him, but because Obasanjo, the sitting president, was being mocked by his own party for lacking support in his own region.

The AD controlled the entire South West, while he was a PDP president, and even PDP governors were already plotting to dump him for Atiku to run for a second term.

So the rigging was aimed at reclaiming the region.

Advertisement

There were widespread reports of inflated figures and implausible turnout in the election Maurice Iwu led INEC conducted under Obasanjo.

In some states, where for example there were 10,000 registered voters, PDP won with 15,000 votes. Registered voter numbers were exceeded by votes cast.

The figures are illustrative, but the pattern was real. In effect, it was as if nobody died, nobody travelled, nobody relocated, nobody was sick, nobody stayed away.

Advertisement

Every single registered voter showed up, and then some more. Only Lagos stood firm and refused to bow.

Tinubu has never lost a single election under a government not run by his party because he understands one simple truth: power is built, not begged for. You stay. You organize. You mobilize. You build from the bottom up.

You do not whine about the system, you master it by winning the hearts of people from your base.

Advertisement

All these victories came under extremely hostile governments that controlled the full machinery of power and personally targeted him.

No technology. No electronic transmission. No biometrics. Everything was manual: accreditation, voting, recording, collation.

Yet the system, imperfect as it was, still produced outcomes.

Advertisement

There was no demand impossibilities.

There was no insistence on perfection before participation.

For years, every right thinking Nigerian has been calling for improvement in our electoral system. I am one of them.

Advertisement

President Tinubu, as an opposition figure who suffered the effects of massive rigging in the South West, consistently clamoured for reform too.

But he never demanded the weaponisation of technology over common sense.

Obasanjo presided over the 2007 election, adjudged the worst in Nigeria’s history.

Advertisement

Even his handpicked candidate, late President Umaru Yar’Adua, openly admitted that the election that brought him to power was massively flawed.

That was why he aligned with voices like Tinubu’s, who was in opposition at the time, in calling for electoral reform. To his credit, Yar’Adua initiated it.

Since then, Nigeria has been amending the Electoral Act with common sense, not by demanding technological impossibilities.

Advertisement

Today, however, a new standard is being proposed that ignores both Nigeria’s realities and global electoral practice.

The idea that results must be transmitted electronically, from over 170,000 polling units, in real time, to a central server, is not reform. It is technological overreach.

Nigeria does not have 100 percent telecommunications coverage.

Advertisement

There are entire communities where voice calls fail, data services collapse, and electricity is unreliable.

To insist that every polling unit must transmit results instantly, without exception, is to build failure into the system.

Even the most advanced nations do not transmit results from all polling booths simultaneously in real time.

Advertisement

No serious democracy sets that bar, because technology fails, networks go down, servers crash, and redundancy does not eliminate risk, it only reduces it.

For me, if these noise makers are demanding technological overreach, the National Assembly must put on its thinking cap.

My suggestion is simple: if the transmission clause must be included, it should only be with a clear condition that in the event of network failure or eventuality, INEC must revert to manual result sheets and physical collation.

Advertisement

After all, what is being uploaded in real time is just a screenshot of the results sheet. We cannot afford to be pushed into chaos.

Asking the National Assembly to amend the Electoral Act to mandate real-time electronic transmission from every polling unit to a dedicated server is not about transparency.

It is about creating conditions for inevitable breakdown, disputes, and paralysis.

Advertisement

Once transmission fails in some areas, what happens next.

Do we cancel results. Do we halt collation.

Do we suspend the election. Do we plunge the country into another avoidable crisis.

Advertisement

Reform must strengthen elections, not weaponize technology against them.

Technology should support the process, not become its weakest link.

A system that works only if everything goes perfectly, in a country where basic infrastructure still struggles, is not a system built for democracy.

Advertisement

It is a system built for stalemate.

The real work of democracy remains what it has always been: organizing, mobilizing, persuading, and building from the ground up.

Elections are won by people, not by servers.

Advertisement

Also read: Kingibe: E-Transmission Still in Electoral Bill

And no democracy survives by demanding miracles from technology instead of building institutions that can function in the real world.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Parliamentary oversight or coordinated smear? The unprocedural attack on NNPCL’s Dr. Mumuni Dagazau

Published

on

Parliamentary

Also read: Iheanacho Extends Scoring Run in Bursaspor Win

This provision empowers each chamber of the National Assembly to order investigations into any matter within its legislative competence, as well as the conduct of any person, authority, ministry, or government department entrusted with executing laws or administering public funds.

Furthermore, Section 62 provides the explicit constitutional foundation for establishing specialized committees, most notably the Committee on Public Petitions, to systematically receive, review, and investigate genuine citizen grievances.

Advertisement

To ensure these powers are exercised with order, discipline, and fairness, the legislature operates under clear Standing Orders formulated pursuant to Sections 60 and 101 of the Constitution.

While derived broadly from the investigative powers in Sections 88 and 128, the specific mechanisms, rules, and mandatory steps for receiving, vetting, hearing, and acting upon public petitions are meticulously detailed within these Standing Orders.

Having established this statutory background, it is essential to emphasize a fundamental principle: the constitutional mandate to receive and investigate petitions is an instrument of public accountability, not a weapon for personal vendettas, political witch-hunts, or legislative leverage.

Advertisement

It is within this context that the recent actions of the House of Representatives Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream) must be critically examined.

Its Chairman, Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere Imo, disclosed at the House Committee Downstream Week that his committee had received a petition alleging money laundering and abuse of office against the Executive Vice President of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, Dr. Mumuni Dagazau.

A rigorous examination of this public disclosure reveals a glaring departure from standard parliamentary practice.

Advertisement

This entire affair bears all the hallmarks of a orchestrated campaign driven by deep-seated malice; a desperate attempt to smear the character of public officers who have steadfastly refused to cow to covert blackmail or compromise their official responsibilities.

If this petition possesses any legitimate substance, why did the Committee Chairman fail to reveal the identity of the petitioner? Going public with an unverified, anonymous document without first conducting a preliminary administrative inquiry, establishing a prima facie case, or according Dr. Dagazau his fundamental constitutional right to a fair hearing is deeply troubling.

By disclosing to the press with unbacked claims, the committee has bypassed established legislative protocol and effectively subjected an officer to a trial by media.

Advertisement

In doing so, the committee risks allowing itself to be used as a proxy for disgruntled elements seeking to undermine ongoing reforms in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector.

These interested parties appear unable to accept that the NNPC Limited of today operates under an entirely different paradigm from the NNPC Limited of the past. Under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), NNPC Limited is driven by financial prudence, corporate accountability, and strict integrity.

The days when public institutions could be coerced into handing out unearned benefits are over. Those who believe they can resort to character assassination to extract personal gain or force compliance will find that their blackmail falls on deaf ears.

Advertisement

Furthermore, the backdrop against which these remarks were made renders the Chairman’s comment even more disappointing.

At a major legislative gathering such as the “House Committee Downstream Week” a platform designed specifically to evaluate the health, security, and growth of Nigeria’s energy sector; the clear expectation of stakeholders, industry experts, and the general public was a forward-looking, substantive engagement.

National interest demanded that the committee focus its spotlight on critical industry dynamics: tracking progress made in local refining capacity, addressing persistent supply and bottlenecks, tackling crude oil theft, and formulating actionable legislative solutions to lower energy costs for everyday Nigerians.

Advertisement

Instead of seizing this vital platform to offer strategic direction and policy support, Hon. Ugochinyere Ikenga chose to reduce a high-level public gathering to a arena for personal attacks and unverified slurs against an executive officer.

Diverting public focus away from pressingly urgent structural challenges in the downstream sector to launch an unprovoked, uninvestigated attack on Dr. Mumuni Dagazau represents a severe misplacement of priorities.

It undermines the very essence of parliamentary responsibility, substituting constructive legislative leadership with sensationalism and targeted distraction at a time when the nation desperately needs solutions, not political theater.

Advertisement

While Dr. Dagazau reserves all legal rights to protect his hard-earned reputation against defamatory attacks and coordinated character assassination, the leadership of the House of Representatives should be urged to step in.

Also read: Iheanacho Extends Scoring Run in Bursaspor Win

The National Assembly must protect the dignity of the parliament by ensuring that committee oversight remains grounded in fairness, thoroughness, and due process, rather than public spectacles driven by unverified petitions.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending