How Electoral Act could shape or shake 2027 election

As Nigeria inches toward the 2027 general elections, the Electoral Act 2026 is emerging as one of the most consequential pieces of legislation shaping the political landscape. From the debates that trailed its passage in the National Assembly to the controversies that followed its signing into law, the Act has triggered intense scrutiny among political actors, legal experts and civil society groups.

For many observers, the law holds the potential to either strengthen the credibility of the electoral process or deepen long-standing doubts about the integrity of elections in Africa’s most populous democracy.

Read also: Okutepa faults new Electoral Act, warns forged certificate cases may escape election

The debate over electronic transmission

Perhaps the most contentious issue during the passage of the Act was the mode of transmitting election results.

Civil society organisations and election observers had demanded that lawmakers make electronic transmission of results mandatory, arguing that technology would reduce manipulation during collation. However, the National Assembly opted for a more flexible approach.

Under the new law, electronic transmission is permitted but not compulsory. In situations where internet connectivity fails, the manually completed Form EC8A will remain the primary document for result collation.

To some, the provision reflects a pragmatic response to Nigeria’s uneven digital infrastructure. To others, it introduces a loophole capable of undermining transparency.

Form EC8A occupies a central place in Nigeria’s electoral architecture. Completed at the polling unit immediately after votes are counted, it serves as the first official record of election results.

In election tribunals, courts frequently rely on the form because it represents the results at the source.

Yet critics argue that once results leave the polling unit physically, they become susceptible to tampering during transportation or collation.

This tension between technological safeguards and manual processes continues to fuel debate about whether the Act has gone far enough to protect the integrity of election outcomes.

A legal controversy over election petitions

Another contentious aspect of the Electoral Act 2026 concerns the grounds for filing election petitions.

Legal experts have raised concerns that the law may have narrowed the scope for challenging election results in court.

Among the most vocal critics is Jibrin Okutepa, a senior advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who recently warned that the Act may have removed the presentation of forged certificates as a ground for election petitions.

“I think the National Assembly has effectively outlawed presentation of forged certificates as part of the grounds for the presentation of election petitions from the jurisprudence of election petition cases in Nigeria,” Okutepa wrote.

According to him, the Electoral Act 2026 now recognises only two grounds for questioning an election.

Quoting Section 138 of the law, he said: “An election may be questioned on the grounds that the: (a) election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.”

The section goes further by imposing penalties on petitioners who attempt to challenge elections on grounds outside those listed in the law.

“Where the court makes a determination that an election is being questioned by a political party or candidate on grounds outside of those provided for under subsection (1), the court shall impose penalties of not less than ₦5,000,000 on the counsel and not less than ₦10,000,000 on the petitioner,” the provision states.

Okutepa argues that this shift represents a major departure from established electoral jurisprudence.

Historically, allegations of certificate forgery have formed part of the qualification grounds that could be used to challenge an election outcome.

“But the new Electoral Act 2026 has removed that ground from the grounds for presentation of election petition. Why was the ground of qualification removed from the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. I cannot hazard a guess,” he said.

The SAN also questioned whether the law may conflict with provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which disqualify candidates who present forged certificates.

He cited Sections 137(1)(j), 182(1)(j), 107(1)(i) and 66(1)(i) of the Constitution, which bar individuals who submit forged certificates from contesting for the offices of president, governor, and membership of the National and State Houses of Assembly.

The issue has sparked debate among legal scholars about whether constitutional provisions could override the limitations introduced by the Electoral Act.

New rules for party primaries

Beyond the legal battles that may follow elections, the Electoral Act 2026 is also poised to reshape political competition within parties themselves.

The law eliminated the indirect primary system, leaving parties with only two options for selecting candidates: direct primaries or consensus.

Under Section 84(2), the procedure for nominating candidates “shall be by direct primaries or consensus.”

Direct primaries allow all registered members of a political party to vote in choosing candidates. While this approach is often seen as more democratic, it can also be logistically complex and financially demanding, especially for parties with large nationwide memberships.

Consensus, by contrast, allows party leaders to agree on a single candidate without conducting a full-scale vote.

But the law imposes strict conditions for adopting the consensus option.

According to Section 84(9), a consensus candidate can only emerge if all cleared aspirants provide written consent to withdraw from the race. If even one aspirant refuses to step down, the party must revert to a direct primary.

The law also requires a special convention or congress to ratify the consensus candidate.

While consensus may appear administratively convenient, political analysts warn that it often leads to internal disputes, especially when aspirants believe party leaders are imposing preferred candidates.

As a result, the new framework could intensify intra-party conflicts and trigger legal battles over candidate selection.

Against this backdrop, critics have begun to question the broader political motivations behind some of the provisions in the Act.

Some political actors argue that the National Assembly and the executive may have designed certain provisions with a predetermined electoral outcome in mind.

Although such allegations remain contested, they underscore the growing mistrust between political actors as the 2027 election cycle approaches.

Read also: Why Nigerians must vote out Tinubu, APC and enthrone true democrats in 2027 – Atsar

INEC urges patience

For its part, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has urged Nigerians to manage expectations.

Speaking recently, Joash Amupitan, the chairman of the commission, acknowledged the challenges involved in conducting elections in a country as large and complex as Nigeria.

“Let me just appeal to Nigerians, because I have noticed now that what Nigerians desire is a perfect election. And INEC will strive as much as possible to give this country the best election,” he said.

“However, we may not be able to achieve a 100 per cent perfect election for now. But as far as electronic transmission of results is concerned, I said it before the FCT Area Council that we have the capacity to transmit the results, and that we’re going to transmit the results. The only concern was real-time.”

The road to 2027

With the Electoral Act 2026 now in force, its real impact will only become clear as Nigeria moves deeper into the election cycle.

From the mechanics of result transmission to the legal thresholds for challenging elections and the rules governing party primaries, the law is set to influence nearly every stage of the electoral process.

Whether it ultimately strengthens public confidence or fuels further controversy may depend less on the letter of the law and more on how political actors, institutions and the courts interpret and apply its provisions.