The political environment ahead of the 2027 General Elections presents one of the biggest tests of Nigeria’s democracy since the return to civilian rule in 1999. Unfortunately, this test is taking place amid growing concerns about the shrinking space for political competition and the increasing concentration of political power in the hands of the ruling party.
In recent months, Nigerians have watched a steady movement of opposition politicians and governors into the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). At the same time, attempts by opposition leaders to build a united front ahead of 2027 have faced legal and judicial obstacles. Internal crises and factional disputes have emerged in key opposition parties, many of which have ended up in court. The recent deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) by the Federal High Court has only added to public anxiety.
Many Nigerians believe these developments are not mere coincidences but part of a broader strategy to weaken the opposition ahead of the next elections. Whether this perception is correct or not, one thing is clear: the Electoral Act, 2026 has deepened concerns about the future of democracy in Nigeria.
These concerns came to the fore during a stakeholders’ meeting convened to examine the Electoral Act, 2026 and its implications for the credibility of the 2027 General Elections. Electoral experts, legal practitioners, civil society organisations and democracy advocates expressed serious reservations about several provisions of the Act. Among the leading voices were former Resident Electoral Commissioner, Barrister Mike Igini, and political scientist, Professor Abdulmumini Kuna.
Their concern was not simply that the law contains technical flaws. Rather, they argued that some provisions create opportunities for manipulation, weaken accountability and make it more difficult to challenge electoral wrongdoing.
One of the most controversial provisions is Section 60. The section provides that where electronic transmission of election results fails because of communication challenges, the result contained in Form EC8A becomes the primary basis for collation and declaration.
Supporters may argue that this is a practical response to network failures. However, Barrister Igini warned that it reopens the loopholes that electoral reforms were designed to close. The introduction of BVAS and electronic transmission of results was intended to reduce human interference and make election results more transparent. By creating room for manual alternatives whenever network challenges are claimed, the law creates an opportunity for abuse. In highly contested areas, electronic transmission could simply be abandoned on the excuse of technical failure, thereby weakening public confidence in election outcomes.
Section 63(2) raises another serious concern. The provision allows Returning Officers to count ballot papers that do not bear official marks if they are satisfied that such ballots came from materials supplied to the polling unit.
While the provision may have been introduced to address administrative challenges, it places too much discretion in the hands of election officials. According to Barrister Igini, election laws should reduce discretion and increase transparency. Once a Returning Officer is empowered to determine which unofficial ballots should count, the process becomes open to abuse. In a closely contested election, such decisions could influence the final outcome and trigger avoidable disputes. This is why stakeholders called for the repeal of Section 63(2) while retaining Section 63(1).
Another provision that has generated concern is Section 77. The section requires political parties to submit membership registers to INEC at least twenty-one days before party primaries and provides that only those whose names appear in those registers can vote or be voted for during primaries.
While transparency in party administration is important, stakeholders questioned whether the provision could be used to exclude candidates from participating in the political process. Nigerian politics is fluid, with political alignments and alliances often changing close to election periods. The strict timelines imposed by the law may prevent otherwise qualified aspirants from contesting elections simply because their names were not captured in a party register within the required period.
In the same light Professor Abdulmumini Kuna acknowledged that digital membership registers could improve transparency. However, he warned that the requirements may place smaller political parties at a disadvantage and could also affect citizens’ constitutional rights to political participation and freedom of association.
Even more troubling are Sections 137 and 138. Section 137(3) provides that where an election petition involves the conduct of an electoral officer, presiding officer or returning officer, such officials do not need to be joined in the petition. Instead, INEC assumes responsibility for defending itself and its officers.
This provision weakens accountability. Electoral officers are often central figures in election disputes. Their actions can determine whether electoral laws are complied with or violated. Shielding them from direct scrutiny makes it harder to establish responsibility when misconduct occurs. Barrister Igini noted that previous legal frameworks allowed electoral officials to appear before tribunals and provide evidence where necessary. The removal of this safeguard raises concerns about the ability of election tribunals to uncover the truth.
Section 138 creates another major challenge. The provision narrows the grounds upon which elections can be challenged. Under the new law, elections may largely be questioned on the basis of corrupt practices, non-compliance with the Electoral Act or failure to secure the majority of lawful votes cast.
What is particularly worrying is the removal of candidate qualification issues as grounds for challenging election outcomes. In the past, allegations involving forged certificates, false declarations and constitutional disqualifications served as important checks on those seeking public office. By excluding such issues from election petitions, the law weakens one of the key mechanisms for holding candidates accountable.
Professor Kuna warned that this creates a conflict between the Constitution and the Electoral Act. While the Constitution sets qualifications for public office, the Electoral Act appears to limit the ability of citizens and political parties to challenge candidates who do not meet those requirements.
Taken together, these provisions raise serious questions about the direction of Nigeria’s electoral system. Stakeholders warned that the Act could weaken electronic result management, reduce accountability, increase litigation and create opportunities for manipulation. There are also concerns that smaller political parties, women, young people and other underrepresented groups may be disproportionately affected.
Most worrying is the possibility that elections may gradually move away from the ballot box and into the courtroom. Democracy works best when voters determine electoral outcomes. It becomes weaker when legal technicalities become more important than the will of the people.
For this reason, stakeholders called for the repeal of Sections 60(3) and 63(2), stronger protections for electronic transmission of results and the restoration of measures that hold electoral officials accountable for their actions. They also urged citizens and civil society organisations to intensify advocacy for electoral reforms before the 2027 elections.
The defence of democracy cannot be left to politicians alone. Nigerians must demand a review of the controversial provisions of the Electoral Act and insist on a legal framework that promotes transparency, accountability and fairness. There is also a need to challenge questionable provisions in court where they appear to conflict with constitutional rights.
The National Judicial Council should develop clear guidelines for election tribunals to ensure that cases are decided on the basis of justice and the will of the people rather than technical loopholes. Likewise, development partners such as the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and the United Nations should engage the Nigerian government and encourage a review of provisions that threaten public confidence in elections.
The time to act is now. Once the electoral process begins, it may become much harder to correct these flaws. Democracy does not collapse in a day. It is weakened gradually when citizens fail to challenge laws and decisions that undermine accountability and the will of the people. Nigerians must ensure that the Electoral Act, 2026 does not become one of the instruments that weakens the foundations of our democracy.
Emejuiwe, Program Manager, Resource Centre for Human Rights and Civic Education (CHRICED), writes from Abuja and can be reached at 08068262366