₦airaland Forum

In the upcoming Ekiti and Osun Elections, the candidates must fully prepare themselves to fully implement the dictates of the Section:60(3) of the newly enacted “Electoral Act 2026”.

..

The Electoral Act clearly mandated the Presiding Officer to transmit the results to the IREV Portal.
It simply means that after the Presiding Officer has SUCCESSFULLY finished transmitting the results at the polling unit (In Front of Everybody), that the same transmitted results SHALL appear IMMEDIATELY on the IREV Portal -- WITHOUT ANY DELAYS.
The Language of the Electoral Act in that section is very clear and unambiguous.

The Electoral Act did not give any possible excuses for delay, because there was not supposed to be any delays in the results appearing on the IREV Portal.

Therefore, If the Presiding Officer SUCCESSFULLY finished transmitting the results from the BVAS Machines, and IT DID NOT IMMEDIATELY APPEAR on the IREV Portal, then the agents of the candidates need to immediately note the name and id-number of that Polling Unit ==>> Because INEC must appear at the Tribunal/courts to explain why the Successfully Transmitted Results did not appear IMMEDIATELY on the IREV Portal, and such polling units must have to be cancelled.

..

..

Meanwhile, the only clause for excuse which the Electoral Act envisaged was only in such cases WHERE THE TRANSMISSION DID NOT EVEN WORK AT ALL from the Polling Units.
This only excuse which the Electoral Act envisaged was “Communication Failure” -- and I am going to explain more about that too.

What it means is that, if the Communication failure did not obstruct the transmission of results from such Polling-Units, then it should not also prevent the results from appearing immediately on the IREV Portal. But on the other hand, if the Presiding Officer Could Not SUCCESSFULLY complete the transmission of the results at the Polling Units, then the agents of the candidates need to also note the name of that Presiding Officer as well as the name and id-number of that Polling Unit ==>> Because INEC must appear at the Tribunal/courts to EXPLAIN THE CAUSE (OR THE CAUSES) of such communication failures at such Polling-Units which prevented the transmission of the results from being SUCCESSFUL at those Polling-Units AS MANDATED.

SUCH “COMMUNICATION FAILURES” CANNOT JUST BE ACCEPTED ON ASSUMPTIONS, OR JUST BECAUSE THEY SAID IT -- THE “COMMUNICATION FAILURES” MUST BE ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN BY THE INEC TO HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

IF INEC SAYS THAT THERE WERE “COMMUNICATION FAILURES” IN SOME POLLING-UNITS, THEN THEY MUST CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THESE “COMMUNICATION FAILURES” REALLY OCCURRED (AND ALSO ESTABLISH WHAT CAUSED THEM).

If they didn't establish reasons for these “Communication Failures” and their extents during the time the election was ongoing, then they must give deeper explanations during the election petition tribunals -- or else it would be counted as a fault against them, and such polling units will have to be cancelled.

This also clearly means that the era where everybody at the Polling-Units would have to wait for A PARTICULAR “CONTROLLING OFFICER” AT THE WARD (Or RATECH) to first approve the transmitted results first before it can appear on the IREV Portal has gone.
It is now a thing of the past.
We are now in the new era where the results must appear IMMEDIATELY on the IREV Portal -- while the Presiding Officer is still there present at the Polling Unit (without leaving the Polling Unit).

Even with the observed shortcomings of the Electoral-Act-2026, it is still far better than the Electoral-Act-2022..

Nevertheless, the actions of the over-ambitious politicians (coupled with the judgements of the courts) is what would determine how powerful the Electoral-Act-2026 will end up being in the end.

We just hope that one day, we will have a free and fair election in Nigeria

For EKITI, the APC has no rival....

Nice oversight and observation Bros.

Send me DM, let me connect you to Uncle for Arise TV interview

So u could air live

This sounds cool but the bad actors can capitalize on this and with the communication failure clause or Equipment failure.

They can undo/sabotage Votes of areas they got issues with, the votes are cancelled and not counted will give them an edge!

Just spitballing

WHO IS THIS ONE - JUST MAKING UNNECESSARY NOISE!!!

While some of these claims are partially accurate but contain significant overstatements, inaccuracies, and prescriptive interpretations that go beyond the actual text of the law.

Just like the Devil asking Eve: Did God say you cannot eat of ANY fruit in the Garden, same way this Olodo is mixing facts with lies and overstatements.

The Electoral Act 2026 exists (signed into law in February 2026 as amendments to the 2022 Act), and Section 60(3) addresses electronic transmission to the IREV portal. However, this Olodo's "immediate" appearance, automatic cancellation of polling units, elimination of any approval processes, and strict burdens on INEC are not fully supported by the law's wording.


This is the Exact Relevant Text from Electoral Act 2026, Section 60

(1) The Presiding Officer shall, after counting the votes at the polling unit, enter the votes scored by each candidate in a form prescribed by the Commission.
(2) The form shall be signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and countersigned by the candidates or their polling agents where available at the polling unit.
(3) The Presiding Officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to IREV portal and such transmission shall be done after the prescribed Form EC8A has been signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and/or countersigned by the candidates or polling agents where available at the polling unit.
Provided that if the electronic transmission of the result fails as a result of communication failure and it becomes impossible to transmit the result contained in Form EC8A..., the Form EC8A shall at all times remain the primary source of collation and declaration of the result.
(4) The Presiding Officer shall count and announce the result at the polling unit.
(5) The Presiding Officer shall transmit the results including total number of accredited voters to the next level of collation.
(6) A Presiding Officer who willfully contravenes any provision of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than ₦500,000 or imprisonment for a term of not less than six months or both.


This is what is Accurate from the Noise oga posted:
* Presiding Officers (POs) must electronically transmit results (via BVAS, presumably) to the IREV portal after signing/stamping Form EC8A (and countersigning where agents are present). This is now a clearer statutory mandate than in the 2022 Act.

* There is an explicit exception for communication failure (e.g., network issues), in which case the physical signed Form EC8A is the primary source for collation/declaration.

* INEC can be called to explain issues (as with any election petition), and willful failure by a PO is now an explicit offense.
Ekiti and Osun off-cycle governorship elections are scheduled for 2026 (around June/July and August), so the new Act applies.

Inaccurate and overstated claims:

* "IMMEDIATELY" on IREV without ANY delays — The Act says "shall electronically transmit" but does not specify "immediately," "real time," or any strict timeframe (earlier drafts debated "real time" but the final version does not mandate it explicitly). N[b]o requirement that results "must appear" instantly while the PO is still at the unit. [/b] Transmission after signing is required, but practical delays (upload processing, server side, etc.) are possible.

* Automatic cancellation of polling units if transmitted but doesn't appear immediately — The Act does not say this. It prioritizes the signed EC8A in cases of failure. Tribunals/courts decide on evidence; non-appearance alone does not mandate cancellation. Polling units can be cancelled for overvoting or other specific reasons, but this scenario isn't automatic.

* Era of "controlling officer" (ward/RATECH) approval is gone — The Act does not explicitly eliminate backend approvals or processing steps. It mandates transmission by the PO but doesn't detail the full technical workflow or prohibit INEC systems from having verification layers.

* INEC must "prove" communication failures or face automatic fault — The proviso allows the exception. In petitions, INEC would need to justify reliance on manual results (as in past cases), but the law does not require real-time "establishment" during the election or automatic cancellation. Burden of proof in court is evidentiary, not a blanket rule.

* "Very clear and unambiguous" with no excuses — The language includes a clear proviso for communication failure, which the post acknowledges but then minimizes.

It is Human beings like this Noise maker that started the If protest goes on for 30 Days, "UN will intervene nonsense during the EndSars," that caused a lot of people to lose their lives because of misinformation

BluntCrazeMan:
In the upcoming Ekiti and Osun Elections, the candidates must fully prepare themselves to fully implement the dictates of the Section:60(3) of the newly enacted “Electoral Act 2026”.

..

The Electoral Act clearly mandated the Presiding Officer to transmit the results to the IREV Portal.
It simply means that after the Presiding Officer has SUCCESSFULLY finished transmitting the results at the polling unit (In Front of Everybody), that the same transmitted results SHALL appear IMMEDIATELY on the IREV Portal -- WITHOUT ANY DELAYS.
The Language of the Electoral Act in that section is very clear and unambiguous.

The Electoral Act did not give any possible excuses for delay, because there was not supposed to be any delays in the results appearing on the IREV Portal.

Therefore, If the Presiding Officer SUCCESSFULLY finished transmitting the results from the BVAS Machines, and IT DID NOT IMMEDIATELY APPEAR on the IREV Portal, then the agents of the candidates need to immediately note the name and id-number of that Polling Unit ==>> Because INEC must appear at the Tribunal/courts to explain why the Successfully Transmitted Results did not appear IMMEDIATELY on the IREV Portal, and such polling units must have to be cancelled.

..

..

Meanwhile, the only clause for excuse which the Electoral Act envisaged was only in such cases WHERE THE TRANSMISSION DID NOT EVEN WORK AT ALL from the Polling Units.
This only excuse which the Electoral Act envisaged was “Communication Failure” -- and I am going to explain more about that too.

What it means is that, if the Communication failure did not obstruct the transmission of results from such Polling-Units, then it should not also prevent the results from appearing immediately on the IREV Portal. But on the other hand, if the Presiding Officer Could Not SUCCESSFULLY complete the transmission of the results at the Polling Units, then the agents of the candidates need to also note the name of that Presiding Officer as well as the name and id-number of that Polling Unit ==>> Because INEC must appear at the Tribunal/courts to EXPLAIN THE CAUSE (OR THE CAUSES) of such communication failures at such Polling-Units which prevented the transmission of the results from being SUCCESSFUL at those Polling-Units AS MANDATED.

SUCH “COMMUNICATION FAILURES” CANNOT JUST BE ACCEPTED ON ASSUMPTIONS, OR JUST BECAUSE THEY SAID IT -- THE “COMMUNICATION FAILURES” MUST BE ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN BY THE INEC TO HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

IF INEC SAYS THAT THERE WERE “COMMUNICATION FAILURES” IN SOME POLLING-UNITS, THEN THEY MUST CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THESE “COMMUNICATION FAILURES” REALLY OCCURRED (AND ALSO ESTABLISH WHAT CAUSED THEM).

If they didn't establish reasons for these “Communication Failures” and their extents during the time the election was ongoing, then they must give deeper explanations during the election petition tribunals -- or else it would be counted as a fault against them, and such polling units will have to be cancelled.

This also clearly means that the era where everybody at the Polling-Units would have to wait for A PARTICULAR “CONTROLLING OFFICER” AT THE WARD (Or RATECH) to first approve the transmitted results first before it can appear on the IREV Portal has gone.
It is now a thing of the past.
We are now in the new era where the results must appear IMMEDIATELY on the IREV Portal -- while the Presiding Officer is still there present at the Polling Unit (without leaving the Polling Unit).

thegrinch:
.....

Inaccurate and overstated claims:

* "IMMEDIATELY" on IREV without ANY delays — The Act says "shall electronically transmit" but does not specify "immediately," "real time," or any strict timeframe (earlier drafts debated "real time" but the final version does not mandate it explicitly). No requirement that results "must appear" instantly while the PO is still at the unit. Transmission after signing is required, but practical delays (upload processing, server side, etc.) are possible.

If you were mandated to give two mangoes to “JOHN”, and you give the mangoes to “JEREMY”, you have not done what you were mandated to do.
And you could be punished for not doing what you were mandated to do.
In another situation, even if you drop the mangoes on top of JOHN’s table and you didn't let JOHN know that you have dropped the mangoes for him on his table so that he can confirm and acknowledge that you have done your own part of the delivery you were mandated to do, then you have not done the delivery yet.
If JOHN dares to say that he didn't see any mango on his table, then you could be punished for not doing what you were mandated to do.
The words of Section-60(3) didn't just stop at “shall electronically transmit the results”.
There is a specific destination.
If the results don't appear at the mandated destination, it is considered a breach.

* Automatic cancellation of polling units if transmitted but doesn't appear immediately — The Act does not say this. It prioritizes the signed EC8A in cases of failure. Tribunals/courts decide on evidence; non-appearance alone does not mandate cancellation. Polling units can be cancelled for overvoting or other specific reasons, but this scenario isn't automatic.

Yes. You are partially correct here.

Bear in mind that the courts would have to give the final interpretations to that particular sub-section.
But then, if a transmitted result does not appear where it has been mandated for it to appear, then it is considered a breach (like I said earlier), and breaches are not to be treated with soft hands.

* Era of "controlling officer" (ward/RATECH) approval is gone — The Act does not explicitly eliminate backend approvals or processing steps. It mandates transmission by the PO but doesn't detail the full technical workflow or prohibit INEC systems from having verification layers.

The same explanation which I gave earlier.
Whenever something is being done, and there is a Target, everybody waits at the target point in order to assess that thing that is being done.
Whatever the INEC like, let them do in-between the transmission and the results appearing on the IREV portal, but the IREV portal is very important here.

* INEC must "prove" communication failures or face automatic fault — The proviso allows the exception. In petitions, INEC would need to justify reliance on manual results (as in past cases), but the law does not require real-time "establishment" during the election or automatic cancellation. Burden of proof in court is evidentiary, not a blanket rule.

Like it happened in the past, efforts were made by the petitioners to establish that there were no communication failures on the day of the election. But the respondents were arguing that the IREV Portal itself and everything that has to do with it is not even necessary in the first place. So, there is no need to start explaining about the communication failure, or to be defending it.
But now that the IREV Portal is necessary, INEC cannot just come out and say that “there is communication failure” without actually showing that there really was a communication failure.

* "Very clear and unambiguous" with no excuses — The language includes a clear proviso for communication failure, which the post acknowledges but then minimizes.

The Proviso is already there. The post acknowledges that The Only Proviso mentioned in the Electoral Act is “Communication Failure”. This means that: any other reasons that arises on the election day that causes the bye-pass of electronic transmission for any particular Polling-Unit is considered a breach if the electoral act.
If that wasn't what you understood from what you read inside the original post, then I just explained further on it.