Senate has clarified that the electronic transmission of election results in real-time does not translate into e-voting, as being peddled in some quarters. It stated that Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) lacked the capacity to conduct e-voting at present.
The upper chamber further clarified that INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV) “is not an e-voting platform, but a platform where the election results that have been manually counted and declared at the polling units are uploaded and publicised”.
Chairman, Senate Ad-hoc Panel to Review the 2026 Electoral Bill, Senator Adeniyi Adegbonmire, made the clarifications on Arise News Channel on Thursday.
Adegbonmire explained the difference between electronic transmission of election results in real-time and e-voting system.
The senate had constituted the adhoc panel to review the report of its Committee on Electoral Matters, harmonise divergent views, and address grey areas identified during the exercise.
It also appointed Adegbonmire to lead the seven-man panel.
Speaking on the senate decision, Adegbonmire explained that Nigeria had not transitioned to an e-voting system, contrary to insinuations in some quarters.
He said, “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.
“This is the misconception that the media has brought into play. The provision you keep emphasising says the presiding officer will first fill the result manually in Form EC8A.
“It is the Form EC8A that has been filled manually and will be transmitted to IReV. If we change ‘transmit’ to ‘upload’ in the Electoral Bill, 2026, will it change anything? The answer is no.”
Adegbonmire, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, further explained that misconception about IReV should be corrected considering its implications for the country’s peaceful co-existence.
The lawmaker pointed out that IReV “is not a voting platform. Rather, it is a platform meant to publicise election results already declared by the presiding officers at polling units across the federation”.
He stated, “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 software developed by INEC to publicise results by INEC.
“IReV is not an e-voting platform as some people think. This is the misinformation some people are peddling. They keep saying when I want to see my vote. But in reality, IReV is a platform meant to publicise election results already declared at the polling units.
“This is not an emotional argument. I heard people say the version of the House of Representatives should be adopted. It is a sheer misconception. What does the version say?
“It simply says the presiding officer shall electronically transmit the result from each polling unit to the IReV portal in real time and such transmission shall be done after Form EC8A has been signed by the presiding officer and countersigned by the candidate or polling agent at the polling unit.”
Some civil society organisations (CSOs) expressed concern over Senate’s revised Section 60(3) of the Electoral Bill, warning that new conditions attached to the electronic transmission of election results can undermine electoral integrity.
In a joint statement in Abuja, the CSOs, including Centre for Media and Society (CEMESO), The Kukah Centre, International Press Centre (IPC), Elect Her, Nigerian Women Trust Fund, TAF Africa, and Yiaga Africa, welcomed Senate’s decision to reverse its earlier position.
They however, described certain insertions in the bill as problematic.
The CSOs said the conditional language — “provided if it fails and it becomes impossible to transmit” — introduced ambiguity and dangerous discretion into the results management process.
According to them, the bill does not clearly define what constitutes a failure, how such failure should be documented, or what verification mechanisms should apply, thereby creating a potential loophole that could weaken transparency safeguards.
Chuks Okocha
Follow us on:
