The controversy trailing the Senate’s passage of amendments to the Electoral Act has exposed not just deep mistrust between lawmakers and the public, but also sharp cracks within the opposition caucus itself.
At the heart of the storm is Clause 60, the provision dealing with the electronic transmission of election results and the lingering question Nigerians are asking: were opposition senators tactically out-manoeuvred on the floor, or is the Senate President himself struggling to explain what the chamber actually approved?
What played out on the Senate floor on Wednesday was a lesson in how speed, procedure and distraction can alter the fate of a sensitive legislative clause.
By the time some lawmakers realised what had happened, the gavel had come down, and Clause 60, the most contentious provision in the entire bill, had been retained in its 2022 form.
Read also: Did Abaribe, others slumber away in Senate as colleagues ‘sowed tares’ into Electoral Act?
Ironically, one of the loudest voices now insisting that the Senate did not reject electronic transmission of results, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, was physically present in the chamber at the precise moment the controversial clause was passed and was visibly distracted.
As Senate Chief Whip, Tahir Mongunu, moved the motion that the Senate should retain Clause 60 “as enshrined in the 2022 Electoral Act,” confusion rippled across the chamber.
The debate was neither prolonged nor detailed. Mongunu’s intervention was brief, technical, and decisive. Almost immediately, Deputy Senate President Jibrin Barau seconded the motion.
Before many lawmakers could process the implication of retaining the word “transfer” instead of explicitly mandating real-time electronic transmission, Senate President Godswill Akpabio hit the gavel.
Clause 60 was passed.
In that split second, the Senate effectively rejected the committee’s recommendation that would have compelled presiding officers to upload polling unit results to INEC’s IReV portal in real time.
What followed was confusion and noise.
Abaribe himself was on the floor, shouting, “Mr President, we can’t hear what he is saying,” as Mongunu moved the motion.
Other lawmakers were engaged in side conversations, walking in and out of the chamber, or reacting to earlier clauses in what had already been a marathon session lasting over four hours.
By the time the chamber “awakened” to what had just happened, the deed was done.
Yet moments later, Akpabio would repeatedly insist that the Senate had, in fact, passed electronic transmission of results.
That insistence, echoed again on Thursday, is what has now complicated the narrative.
At a press briefing on Thursday, the Minority Caucus of the Senate dismissed widespread claims that the Senate rejected electronic transmission of election results.
Led by Abaribe, opposition senators said public outrage was based on a misunderstanding of both the legislative process and the wording adopted by the Senate.
“There has been criticism from Nigerians following the Senate’s passage of the Electoral Act Amendment on Wednesday,” Abaribe said, noting that the controversy centred on Clause 60.
He explained that senators voted down a recommendation by the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters which sought to compel presiding officers to transmit results electronically to the INEC IReV portal in real time.
The rejected recommendation was explicit. It stated that results must be electronically transmitted in real time after votes are counted, signed, stamped and countersigned at the polling unit.
Instead, the Senate retained the provision in the extant 2022 Electoral Act, a provision that allows electronic transfer of results “in a manner prescribed by INEC,” without specifying real-time upload or the platform to be used.
For critics, that distinction is not semantics. It is the entire substance of the reform.
But for the Minority Caucus, the line they are now walking is delicate. On one hand, they insist that electronic transmission was not rejected. On the other hand, they admit that the clearer, stronger clause proposed by the committee did not survive plenary.
“What we passed is the transmission of results. The distinction is important,” Abaribe argued.
“What is in the 2022 Act is ‘transfer’, but we do not want a law that is vague or capable of misinterpretation.”
That explanation, however, sits uneasily with the events of Wednesday.
If opposition senators were fully aware of what was happening, why was there visible confusion on the floor? Why did no one demand a clause-by-clause vote or insist on clarity before the gavel fell? And why did it take a Thursday press conference after public backlash for lawmakers to begin “confirming individually what was done”?
More troubling is the suggestion, made by Abaribe himself, that movements and side conversations contributed to the confusion.
Read also: Electoral Act: Coalition leaders Bugaje, Falana, Ezekwesili, Utomi, others reject senate’s decision
In legislative politics, distraction is not neutral. It creates opportunity.
Mongunu’s motion to retain Clause 60 was procedural, but its impact was political. It preserved INEC’s discretion and avoided binding the commission to real-time electronic transmission; a key demand of civil society and opposition parties since the 2023 election.
That the motion passed so swiftly raises uncomfortable questions about whether the opposition underestimated the moment or was simply outpaced by a more alert majority.
Akpabio’s repeated insistence that the Senate passed electronic transmission has further muddied the waters.
On Wednesday, shortly after passage of the bill, he told senators that social media reports claiming the Senate rejected electronic transmission were “not true.”
“What we did was to retain the electronic transmission which has been in the act and was used in 2022,” he said.
On Thursday, opposition senators echoed that position, saying they were putting their integrity on the line to defend the Senate’s action.
Yet integrity, in this case, is now competing with optics and records.
The Votes and Proceedings, the official record of what was passed, have not yet been adopted.
The harmonisation committee with the House of Representatives has not begun work. This leaves room for correction, reinterpretation, or renewed battle.
Abaribe acknowledged as much, noting that the Senate would insist that electronic transmission be “clearly reflected” when the Votes and Proceedings are adopted.
Still, the damage may already have been done.
Read also: Akpabio defends Senate against criticism over Electoral Act amendment
To many Nigerians, the episode looks less like legislative finesse and more like a classic case of being out-manoeuvred. Whether by design or accident, the opposition appeared unprepared for the speed with which Clause 60 was taken and sealed.
The lingering question remains: were opposition senators cleverly outsmarted on the floor, or is the Senate President struggling to reconcile procedure with perception?
What is clear is that Clause 60 did not receive the scrutiny it deserved at the moment that mattered most. And in electoral reform, moments matter.
As the bill moves to harmonisation, the fight over electronic transmission is far from over. But the Senate’s handling of Clause 60 has already deepened public skepticism, not just about the law, but about the lawmakers themselves.
In a democracy still haunted by disputed elections, confusion is costly. And distraction, as Wednesday showed, can be decisive.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
