The Senate Minority Caucus clarified on Thursday that the Senate did not reject the electronic transmission of election results before passing the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, contrary to widespread media reports.
The clarification comes barely 24 hours after the upper chamber came under fire on Wednesday following reports that lawmakers had rejected proposals for the electronic transmission of results and a 10-year ban on vote buyers and other electoral offenders.
Shortly after the reports went viral, Senate President Godswill Akpabio dismissed the claims as misleading. He also maintained that legislators retained electronic transfer as provided under the 2022 Electoral Act, a distinction he said was necessary to avoid legal and operational ambiguities.
Speaking to journalists on Thursday, former Senate Minority Leader Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, said the caucus was compelled to address what he described as a widespread misunderstanding of Wednesday’s plenary proceedings.
“Since yesterday, the media has been awash with reports suggesting that the Senate rejected the electronic transmission of election results. That is not correct,” Abaribe said.
“To put the record straight, the Senate did not — I repeat, did not — reject electronic transmission of results as provided for in the 2022 Electoral Act.”
He explained that what the Senate passed was the electronic transmission of results, a position which, according to him, was also clarified by the Senate President during plenary.
Abaribe stressed that senators hold public trust derived from the confidence reposed in them by their constituencies, adding that the caucus considered it necessary to address the issue in the interest of transparency.
“We came here under the trust of our senatorial districts. When it appears that our actions have been misunderstood, it becomes necessary to clarify exactly what happened,” he said.
He outlined the legislative process that led to the decision, beginning with the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives on electoral matters.
According to him, the joint committee held several retreats within and outside Abuja, with the participation of the Independent National Electoral Commission and civil society organisations.
“At the end of those retreats, everyone agreed that electronic transmission of results was the way to go. That position was reflected in the reports presented to both chambers,” he said.
He noted that the process also involved extensive debates, public hearings, and consultations, describing electronic transmission of results as a core, non-negotiable provision.
Following the submission of the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters’ report, Abaribe said an Ad hoc Committee was constituted to further review the report.
The Ad hoc Committee, chaired by Senator Sadiq Umar, presented its findings, which were deliberated upon during a closed-door session.
“The closed session was held to tidy up all outstanding issues so that when we returned to plenary, the bill could be passed without rancour,” he explained.
According to him, the Senate Electoral Committee, the Ad hoc Committee, and senators at the executive session unanimously agreed on the provision for electronic transmission of results, as contained in Section 65 of the bill.
“At plenary yesterday, we passed the electronic transmission of results. However, because of movement and noise in the chamber, it appeared to some that something went wrong,” he said.
Abaribe added that senators later sought confirmation and were reassured, noting that video records also show the Senate President affirming that electronic transmission of results was passed.
The senator further explained that a harmonisation committee was set up because of differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill on issues such as timelines.
“The role of the harmonisation committee is to reconcile differences between both versions and produce a single document for presidential assent,” he said.
However, he noted that the Senate has not yet adopted the votes and proceedings, a procedural requirement before harmonisation can commence.
“After plenary yesterday, we adjourned without adopting the votes and proceedings. Under our rules, harmonisation cannot begin without that step,” he explained.
Abaribe assured that the Senate would reconvene to adopt the votes and proceedings, insisting that it must accurately reflect the provision on electronic transmission of results.
“Only after that can the harmonisation committee meet. At harmonisation, you either adopt the House version or the Senate version — nothing else,” he said.
He reiterated that what the Senate passed was the electronic transmission of results in real time.
“This is not a party matter,” Abaribe added. “Senators across party lines agree on this because transparent, free, and fair elections are the foundation of democracy. If results are not transparent or the process is distorted, then it is not a democracy.”
Responding to questions on why an Ad hoc Committee was constituted despite the work of the standing committee, the opposition lawmakers explained that the Senate reserves the right to regulate its internal processes, noting that committee members were present to clarify issues during deliberations.
They maintained that the Senate leadership would ensure due process is followed and that the final document reflects the will of the legislature.
The caucus concluded by reiterating that no harmonisation can lawfully occur until the Senate adopts the Votes and Proceedings confirming electronic transmission of election results.
