It is becoming increasingly clear that the 2027 general elections may have been won and lost even before the first ballot is cast.
Nine months before the polls, the 2026 Electoral Act Amendment Bill, signed into law on February 18 this year by President Bola Tinubu, contains several ‘landmines’ that those in opposition political parties were either too busy to detect or were ignorant of while the bill was before members of the National Assembly.
Months before the Electoral Bill was signed into law, many of those in opposition were so consumed by the need to insert a clause into the bill that would allow for real-time transmission of results that they failed to notice several loopholes. Yet, many of them are lawyers and Senior Advocates, but they could not take the time to go through the details of what the National Assembly, dominated by members of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), were cooking against them.
A few months to the conduct of the 2027 general elections, some opposition figures have now woken up from their slumber and are calling for a fresh amendment of a law that has only recently been passed.
Former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, raised the red flag last week when he called for an urgent amendment of the Act, warning that a critical provision poses a threat to the integrity of future elections.
In a statement signed by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku expressed concern over Section 63 of the Act, particularly the clause that allows a ballot paper without an official mark to be counted at the discretion of a Returning Officer.
Describing the provision as a “grave and dangerous ambiguity,” he said it creates room for manipulation and could undermine the credibility of the electoral process.
“This is not a minor technical issue — it is a direct threat to electoral integrity,” he said, stressing that any system that leaves ballot validation to subjective judgment invites dispute and potential abuse.
“A democracy cannot survive on ambiguity. A ballot must either meet the standard, or it does not. The moment such a critical decision is left to discretion, it opens the door to manipulation and chaos,” he added.
While noting that the provision may have been intended to prevent voter disenfranchisement, Atiku argued that its current wording is overly broad and weakens public confidence in the system.
“At a time when Nigerians demand transparency and credibility, it is risky to retain a clause that undermines trust in the very foundation of democracy — the vote,” he said.
Atiku is not alone in the call for a fresh amendment.
A former Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mike Igini, has also warned that Nigeria’s 2027 elections could be undermined if key provisions are not urgently reviewed.
Igini pointed to Sections 63, 137, and 138 as major vulnerabilities that could enable manipulation, weaken accountability, and shift election outcomes from polling units to courtrooms.
According to him, Section 63 grants excessive discretion to electoral officers, particularly subsection (2), which allows a ballot paper without an official security mark to be counted if the Returning Officer is “satisfied” it came from the appropriate ballot book.
“With that section, the presiding officer has been given discretion to accept a ballot paper notwithstanding the absence of an official mark,” Igini said. “What that means is that politicians who have access to INEC ballot security features could print their own ballots.”
He described the provision as dangerous.
Igini also criticised Section 137, which outlines who can present election petitions, arguing that it shields electoral officials from direct accountability. Under the provision, INEC can defend cases without necessarily joining the officer accused of misconduct.
“Some unscrupulous members of the Commission gave security features of ballot papers to politicians. When INEC went to court to say a document was not its own, the tribunal upheld a forged document,” he alleged.
On Section 138, Igini said it weakens the enforceability of INEC guidelines, noting that actions that violate commission directives but not the Act itself may not be sufficient grounds to challenge an election.
He also raised concerns about Section 138(2), which limits the basis for contesting election results, describing it as one of the long-standing “rigging provisions” that had been resisted in the past.
Another controversial provision identified by analysts is Section 77(2), which mandates political parties to submit a comprehensive digital membership register to INEC at least 21 days before their primaries.
The section requires detailed information including names, gender, date of birth, address, state, local government, ward, polling unit, national identity number, and photographs of members.
Section 77(5) further provides that only individuals whose names appear on the submitted register can vote or be voted for in party primaries, congresses, and conventions.
More critically, Section 77(7) states that any party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated timeframe will not be eligible to field candidates in elections conducted by INEC.
The implications became clearer when INEC released its revised timetable for the 2027 elections, directing parties to submit their registers by April 21 — later extended to May 10 — months ahead of the polls.
Critics argue that this provision effectively prevents political parties from admitting new members after submission, locking out potential entrants nearly nine months before the general election.
Some observers believe the clause may affect key political figures, including former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi, who recently exited the party amid internal leadership disputes involving factions led by Lamidi Apapa, Julius Abure, and Senator Nenadi Usman.
Despite ongoing legal battles, including cases before the Supreme Court, uncertainty remains over which faction holds legitimate authority — a situation that could complicate compliance with the membership register requirement.
Questions have also been raised about why political parties must submit membership registers to INEC, as global practice typically leaves such records under party control, while electoral bodies focus on voter registers.
Under the current law, once parties submit their registers, they are effectively barred from admitting new members until after the election cycle.
With internal crises still unresolved in several opposition parties, there are fears they may miss the submission deadline, which would automatically disqualify them from fielding candidates.
This raises concerns that major opposition platforms, including the ADC and PDP, could face significant setbacks if compliance issues persist.
Ironically, while opposition lawmakers pushed for real-time transmission of results — a reform eventually included in the Act — the legislation also retained provisions for manual transmission where electronic transmission is not feasible.
For decades, Nigeria’s elections have faced disputes during result collation rather than at polling units. Technological tools like BVAS and the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) were introduced to improve transparency, but their use has not been fully entrenched in law, leaving room for discretion.
Although the 2026 Electoral Act makes some progress, critics argue that the embedded loopholes may tilt the playing field in favour of the ruling APC.
Ultimately, the opposition may have to bear responsibility for failing to scrutinise the legislation thoroughly when it mattered most.
With the current realities, some analysts believe preparations may already be shifting beyond 2027 — as the battle may have been decided long before election day.
See you next week.
