Direct e-transmission of election results is mandatory (2)
Guardian NigeriaMar 7, 2023 12:00 AM
It is respectfully submitted that the legal and practical implications of the provisions of Section 64(5) of the Electoral Act 2022, are:

It is respectfully submitted that the legal and practical implications of the provisions of Section 64(5) of the Electoral Act 2022, are:

1. Electronic Transmission of election results direct from the polling units is MANDATORY;

2. Collation of results manually (the lower level of collation) is still allowed;

3. Where there is a conflict between results transmitted electronically direct from the polling units and results as collated manually, the results as transmitted electronically direct from the polling units shall prevail;


4. In order to determine whether such a conflict exists, there must have been direct electronic transmission from the polling units, before the manual transmission. Both must co-exist.

5. The results transmitted direct from the polling units (higher level collation) are the yardsticks for measuring the authenticity of the results collated manually (lower level collation);

6. The collation officer at the collation centre, must be afforded the opportunity of measuring the authenticity of the manually-collated results by matching them against the electronically transmitted results. This opportunity may only exist where there has been direct electronic Transmission from the polling units before the manual collation, so that both must be present to enable the collation officer to make an informed determination.

7. Failure to transmit the results electronically DIRECT from the polling units is a fatal violation of the law, because the collation officer is then denied the mandatory opportunity to verify the authenticity of the manually collated results by matching them against the electronically transmitted results.

From all the aforesaid, it could reasonably be concluded that failure to transmit results DIRECT electronically from the polling units is more than a substantial non-compliance with extant law.


From the law, it appears that the foundation of the authenticity of the entire electoral process in Nigeria, under the Electoral Act 2022, is hinged on electronic Transmission of the results direct from the polling units. Where this fails, the affected election fails because its credibility has been completely lost on account of absence or failure of direct electronic transmission from the polling units; direct electronic transmission being the surest safeguard provided by the extant electoral laws for determining the authenticity and credibility of the results of the elections.

It’s therefore a flagrant desecration of the extant electoral law to refuse/fail to transmit the results electronically DIRECT from the polling units.

It’s respectfully hereby restated that there can hardly be any talk of CREDIBLE and FAIR elections under the Electoral Act 2022 without direct electronic transmission of results from the polling units.

The provisions on Direct electronic transmission of results are put in place to cure the mischief (rampant manipulation of results) which had persisted as a result of the lacuna in the previous/old law. Where electronic Transmission fails, the whole purpose of the Electoral Act 2022 is grossly defeated and the election fails for being illegal and invalid.

The requirements of the Electoral Act 2022 and the Regulations and Guidelines on direct electronic transmission of election results from the polling units are a mandatory requirement which may NOT be flouted with impunity, it seems.

It is truism in law, that breach of a MANDATORY statutory provision is fatal to the act done in breach thereof. Hence, in Amalgamated Trustees Ltd V. Associated Discount House LTD (2007) LPELR-454(SC), the Supreme Court said (Per OGBUAGU ,J.S.C ( Pp. 75-76, paras. F-A ), “It is settled that not every breach of a statutory provision, renders an act void, and that to be void, it must not be merely directory, but mandatory. See Odu’a Investment Co. Ltd. v. Talabi (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 523) 1; (1997) SCNJ 600 at 649 – per Ogundare, JSC (of blessed memory).”


Further, where a statute prescribes that an act MUST be done in a particular way, that act can only be validly done in the prescribed manner. Also, in SANUSI V. AYOOLA & ORS (1992) LPELR-3009(SC), the Supreme Court said (Per KARIBI-WHYTE ,J.S.C pp. 19-20, paras. F-C) that: “It is well settled principle of our jurisprudence and an important requirement of our administration of justice that where the exercise of a power is statutory, such power can only be exercised within the limits prescribed by the statute. – See Bowaje v. Adediwura (1976) 6 S.C.143.”

This being the case, it is most unfortunate, embarrassing and heart-rending, that INEC had collected over N350 billion from the coffers of the Federation of Nigeria (on the condition that it would comply with the law through mandatory direct electronic transmission of results from the polling units as prescribed by law with the aim of giving Nigerians credible elections in 2023) only to turn around to flagrantly flout the laws of the land by deliberately refusing or failing to electronically transmit directly from the polling units, more than 80 percent of the results.

This is a national shame and embarassment, perpetrated in the full glare of the world. See: See: *2023: no going back on electronic transmission of results, inec reassures (Channelstv; 26 October 2022).

Meanwhile, In a release titled “Electronic Transmission & Collation Of Results” which comes under the general heading “2023 General Election Updates” and published by INEC on its own website ( accessed on 28 February 2023 at 1.00pm), the INEC wrote as follows:

“One of the most progressive provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 is the provision for result management from the Polling Units (PUs) to various levels of collation and declaration of winners. The process, as provided by the Act, is basically still manual involving the recording of results on forms (as determined by the Commission) and their delivery to various levels of collation until declaration and return are made.

However, the law also provides for electronic transmission of results. In the event of dispute arising in the course of collation, the electronically-transmitted result shall be used to resolve it. These are clearly provided for in Sec. 60 of the Act which deals with the counting of votes, their entry into specific forms endorsed by INEC officials and candidates/polling agents and their transfer to collation centres.

Furthermore, Sec. 64 (4), (5) and (6) of the Act provides for the recording and transmission of accreditation data and election results directly from the PUs using the Smart Card Reader or any other electronic device determined by the Commission”.
To be continued tomorrow

Of course very mandatory

I will see how olanikpekun will prove this.

Olanipekun is not interested in the case, he probably binned the brief when he first read it Lateef Fagbemi is the lead counsel

popesco123:
I will see how olanikpekun will prove this.