Members of the Joint National Assembly Conference Committee are scheduled to meet on Monday in what is widely regarded as a decisive step toward resolving the lingering differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives over the Electoral Amendment Bill, a process that will ultimately determine the version to be transmitted to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for assent.
The planned meeting comes amid heightened political attention and public scrutiny, as lawmakers move to conclude deliberations on a piece of legislation considered central to strengthening Nigeria’s electoral framework ahead of the 2027 general election. The harmonisation exercise represents the final legislative stage before presidential consideration, placing significant responsibility on the committee to bridge the gaps between both chambers and produce a unified text capable of commanding broad institutional and public confidence.
The conference committee was constituted in accordance with established parliamentary procedure after the Senate and the House passed different versions of the same amendment bill, particularly in relation to provisions governing the electronic transmission and collation of election results. Under legislative rules, when both chambers of the National Assembly approve separate drafts containing conflicting clauses, a joint panel comprising selected lawmakers from each side is mandated to reconcile the differences and produce a harmonised version that reflects mutual agreement. Only after this reconciliation process is completed can the bill be transmitted to the President for assent, making the committee’s assignment a constitutionally significant responsibility within the lawmaking process.
At the heart of the disagreement between the Senate and the House lies the scope, timing and legal consequences of electronic transmission of election results, an issue that has dominated electoral reform discourse since the conclusion of the 2023 general election.
While both chambers broadly agree on the use of technology in the electoral process, they differ on whether the law should explicitly mandate real-time transmission of results from polling units and how the law should address situations where technological infrastructure fails. These differences have generated intense debate within the legislature and among stakeholders, reflecting broader concerns about transparency, accountability and the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.
The renewed push to amend the Electoral Act is unfolding against the backdrop of controversies that trailed the 2023 presidential election, particularly the failure of the Independent National Electoral Commission to upload results to its Result Viewing Portal in real time as many Nigerians had anticipated.
The issue of delayed uploads and the legal weight of the IReV portal became central points of contention in post-election litigation and public discourse, with critics arguing that the absence of explicit statutory backing for real-time electronic transmission created ambiguity and weakened public trust. Civil society groups, opposition parties and some lawmakers have since advocated clearer legal provisions to eliminate uncertainty and prevent a recurrence of similar disputes in future elections.
A senior National Assembly source confirmed that the harmonisation process would formally commence on Monday, emphasising that members of the committee had been given a one-week window to conclude deliberations on contentious provisions and submit their report to both chambers for adoption. “It is taking place on Monday,” the source stated, underscoring the urgency attached to the assignment and suggesting that logistical arrangements had already been concluded for the session. The timeline reflects the determination of the leadership of the National Assembly to ensure that the amendment process is concluded well ahead of major preparatory activities for the next electoral cycle.
Commenting on the anticipated meeting, the senator representing Bayelsa West, Seriake Dickson, indicated that Monday was the likely date for the reconciliation exercise, although he clarified that he was not directly involved in the committee’s work. “I don’t know the actual date since I am not a member of the Conference Committee. But we are hoping it may take place next Monday,” he said.
Dickson had previously urged members of the committee to adopt in full the version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives, cautioning that any dilution of the electronic transmission provision could erode public confidence in the electoral process and undermine efforts to enhance transparency.
Senate President Godswill Akpabio had earlier indicated that once harmonised, the bill would be transmitted to President Tinubu before the end of the month, a statement that has reinforced expectations that the legislative process will be completed within a defined timeframe. His remarks signalled the upper chamber’s readiness to conclude the amendment and highlighted the leadership’s recognition of the political sensitivity surrounding electoral reforms. The planned transmission to the President is widely viewed as a crucial step in consolidating legislative consensus on reforms deemed necessary to safeguard the credibility of future elections.
Another source familiar with the process disclosed that Senator Simon Lalong had earlier communicated Monday, February 16, 2026, as the date for the committee’s meeting, adding that the importance of the bill might have warranted temporary adjustments to lawmakers’ schedules.
“Senator Lalong has given Monday as the day of the meeting on the bill. I think the members may have been excused from the ongoing budget defence exercise by the various Ministries, Departments and Agencies to work on the bill, given its importance to the 2027 election,” the source said, suggesting that parliamentary leadership is prioritising the amendment over other legislative engagements.
Although he stopped short of confirming the exact date, the House spokesman, Akin Rotimi, acknowledged that members drawn from both chambers had already initiated consultations ahead of the formal sitting. “They are already engaging,” he said, offering no further details but implying that informal discussions were underway to narrow areas of disagreement before the official reconciliation session convenes.
Two members of the conference committee also spoke cautiously about the anticipated meeting, reflecting the sensitive nature of the deliberations. Senator Sada Soli said, “It’s possible but not yet confirmed,” while Senator Iduma Igariwey stated simply, “not yet confirmed.” Their comments underscored the fluidity of the schedule and the careful approach adopted by lawmakers in managing expectations surrounding the harmonisation process.
Under the House version of the bill, Section 60(3) provides that, “The Commission shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IREV portal in real time, and such transmission shall be done simultaneously with the physical collation of results.” This formulation makes real-time electronic transmission mandatory and explicitly links it with concurrent physical collation at the polling unit, thereby entrenching a dual-layered transparency mechanism designed to enhance public trust and reduce opportunities for manipulation.
In contrast, the Senate version stipulates, “The Presiding Officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the INEC Result Viewing Portal, and such transmission shall be done after the prescribed Form EC8A has been signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and countersigned by the candidates or polling agents where available at the polling unit. But if the electronic transmission of the result fails as a result of communication failure, and it becomes impossible to transmit the result electronically, the signed and stamped Form EC8A by the Presiding Officer, and countersigned by the candidates or polling agents where available, shall in such a case be the primary source of collation and declaration of results.” This version introduces a clear manual fallback mechanism in the event of technological breakdown.
Beyond transmission provisions, the House also strengthened Section 31 of the Principal Act dealing with candidate withdrawal. While the existing law states, “A candidate may withdraw his or her candidature by notice in writing signed by him and delivered personally by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for election, and the political party shall convey such withdrawal to the Commission not later than 90 days to the election,” the amended House version adds a sworn affidavit requirement, stating, “A candidate may withdraw his or her candidature by notice in writing signed by him together with a sworn affidavit and delivered personally by the candidate to the political party that nominated him for election, and the political party shall convey such withdrawal to the Commission not later than 90 days to the election.”
The House further amended Section 137 concerning the Establishment of Area Council Election Appeal Tribunal by proposing in subsection 7 that, “The tribunal shall deliver a judgment in writing within 150 days from the date of the filing of the petition,” thereby reducing the timeframe from the existing 180 days provided under the current Electoral Act. Lawmakers supporting the amendment argue that shortening the timeline would expedite the resolution of election disputes and enhance the efficiency of the judicial process.
Amid public debate, Senator Adeniyi Adegbonmire sought to clarify misconceptions surrounding the concept of real-time transmission, stressing that it does not equate to electronic voting. He explained that INEC currently lacks the infrastructure to conduct e-voting and emphasised that the Result Viewing Portal is merely a platform for publishing results already manually counted and declared at polling units.
“People need to understand what real-time means. Real-time transmission can only happen if INEC adopts an e-voting system. For now, INEC does not have the capability for e-voting. Maybe in two or three years, we can adopt e-voting. But as of today, INEC has not put an e-voting system in place,” Adegbonmire said. He further added, “This is the misconception that the media has brought into play. The provision you keep emphasising says the presiding officer will first fill in the result manually in Form EC8A. It is the Form EC8A that has been filled manually that will be transmitted to IReV. If we change ‘transmit’ to ‘upload’ in the Electoral Bill, 2026, will it change anything? The answer is ‘No.’”
He elaborated further, stating, “It is important, first of all, to understand what IReV does because there is a lot of misconception about it or deliberate misrepresentation of what it stands for. The Senate never said INEC should not use IReV for the 2027 elections. So, what is IReV? It is a software developed by INEC to publicise the results by INEC. IReV is not an e-voting platform as some people think. This is the misinformation some people are peddling.” He added that “whether we call it upload, transfer, or transmission, as far as it says IReV must be used, it will be used in the manner it was configured.”
Adegbonmire also addressed logistical challenges affecting election timelines, explaining that voting does not commence simultaneously across the country due to terrain and transportation constraints. “When you talk about transmission, it has nothing to do with the sanctity of the voting process. If you are given a ballot paper to thumbprint, it is counted manually after the election. It is not IReV or BVAS that counts ballots. The vote count is manually done,” he said, cautioning against drawing conclusions about manipulation solely based on upload timing discrepancies.
Reacting to the legislative debate, former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Olisa Agbakoba, called on the National Assembly to entrench mandatory real-time electronic transmission in the Electoral Act. “The National Assembly must act decisively to embed mandatory real-time electronic transmission of results in the Electoral Act. Democracy demands nothing less,” he stated, arguing that explicit statutory backing is necessary to eliminate ambiguity and enhance electoral credibility.
Agbakoba referenced the June 12, 1993 election as a benchmark for transparency, noting, “The Option A4 system allowed voters, party agents and observers to openly verify results at polling units before collation. If manual transparency could deliver such credibility in 1993, imagine the transformative impact of real-time electronic transmission in our digital age.”
He further cited Supreme Court pronouncements, stating, “The court was clear that because electronic transmission is not expressly provided for in the Electoral Act 2022, it is not legally binding. The IReV portal, according to the court, serves merely for public viewing and is not admissible evidence of results in election petitions. The ruling sent an unmistakable message that without explicit statutory provision, electronic transmission remains optional and legally inconsequential, no matter how transparent or efficient it may be.”
As lawmakers prepare to convene, the harmonisation meeting is expected to shape the final contours of the amended Electoral Act and clarify the National Assembly’s definitive stance on the role of technology in safeguarding the credibility of Nigeria’s elections. With competing interpretations, legal arguments and political considerations in play.