For the 2026 Electoral Act, a former INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mike Igini, has voiced new worries about three “dangerous provisions” that, he says, could cast doubt on the validity of subsequent elections, including the 2027 vote.
Igini, who had previously disengaged from political debates owing to displeasure with system improvements, spoke on Wednesday’s Arise TV’s The Morning Show and claimed that his worries emerged after a thorough analysis of the new law.
In addition to his previous worries about Section 60(3), he has now discovered other sections that, in his opinion, constitute serious threats to the credibility of the election.
To support his claim, Igini cited Section 63 of the Act, which states that presiding officers might be “satisfied” with the legitimacy of voting papers even if they do not exhibit INEC’s official marks or security features. This, he said, introduces exploitable subjective discretion.
In his view, the word “satisfied” brings back an infamous provision from the 2010 Electoral Act that was ultimately repealed following widespread outcry.
This kind of discretion, Igini said, may allow for the use of unapproved ballot papers in elections.
Section 138, which addresses the reasons for submitting election petitions, was another area that the ex-REC voiced reservations about. According to Igini, this provision implies that failure to comply with INEC directions (rather than the Electoral Act itself) cannot be invoked to contest the outcome of an election.
He made the case that this effectively protects electoral officials from consequences when they disregard INEC regulations, which normally contain such directives.
Igini went on to say that Section 137 was problematic because it did away with the need for returning or presiding officers and other electoral officials to be named as respondents in petitions filed by voters alleging wrongdoing during an election.
He voiced his worry that this provision may make it harder to punish specific officials for alleged election fraud.
“You know, I’ve been feeling really let down lately, so I haven’t been interested in much. But I’ve finally decided, let me look into the Electoral Act,” he explained.
In contrast to our previous intervention, which focused on Section 60, subsection 3, I have discovered that the legislation has a provision that will undermine the official elections scheduled for 2027.
I have now discovered three sections that are more harmful; I have published them, and I believe Nigerians can understand them.
Section 63 will be our starting point. They have reinstated something dreadful in Section 63, which I have only recently learned about. You can see that the presiding officer must accept ballot papers for the 2027 election that do not include the official marks and features, as well as security visions of INEC.
It is now up to the Presiding Officer to decide whether or not to accept ballot paper without the official mark and count it.
The politicians who have gained access to the INEC ballot’s security features will now print their ballots before the election. In order to have their ballots counted, they want to print them themselves. They inserted the Electoral Act, which is risky.
Section 138 is another rigging provision that we have demanded be eliminated, and I would like to demonstrate it to you. Actually, you may recall that the sole year without an Electoral Act was 2019—during this Republic’s tenure under Buhari. If you recall, we suggested removing this section and this item, but they were both rejected.
According to this clause, an act or omission that goes against the instructions or directives of the commission or an officer selected for the election cannot, in and of itself, be used to challenge the results of the election.
Let me make a couple of observations. Putting it into words and bringing that part back again is how you trick people, you see. They should have cited INEC regulations and guidelines instead, since those documents contain all of INEC’s instructions and directives.
A returning officer, a coalition officer, or the officer presiding over the election is supposedly allowed to disregard any rule or order from INEC. Thus, they granted protection in that area.
We’ll go on to the last part now. It will interest Nigerians to know that section 137 now specifies that all those types of individual, I suppose the other time, I presented you what we term a pyramid.
The presiding officer and the returning officers are part of the categories we just listed. It states that individuals are no longer have to be present while filing a petition or complaint against the actions of an Electoral Officer, presiding officer, or returning officer. This means that individuals who have disregarded INEC instructions and guidelines will not need to face legal consequences.
“So, you’re claiming that, now that you’re a respondent with INEC, it won’t be necessary to bring the presiding officers and other election riggers—the ones who actually made the document—to the tribunal?”