Connect with us

News

How Akpabio’s leadership secured Nigeria’s electoral future

Published

4 weeks ago

on

By Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh mnipr
In the evolving story of Nigeria’s democratic consolidation, few issues have provoked as much intensity as electoral reform. The signing into law of the Electoral Act (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill 2026 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu marked another chapter in this journey, drawing applause, skepticism, and fierce debate in equal measure.
At the centre of this moment stands Godswill Akpabio, President of the Senate, who has consistently articulated a position that blends institutional caution with reformist intent. His assertion that the National Assembly met “the aspirations of Nigerians, not a few people who make noise” reflects not merely rhetorical flourish, but a deeper philosophy of lawmaking anchored in constitutionalism, legislative procedure, and national peculiarities.
To understand Akpabio’s positioning, one must situate the reform within Nigeria’s broader democratic trajectory. Since the country’s return to civilian rule in 1999, electoral reforms have often oscillated between technological optimism and structural reality. The 2026 re-enactment does not discard innovation; rather, it recalibrates it. In defending the new Act, Akpabio emphasized that the National Assembly undertook a “painstaking” and “thorough” process, mindful of the country’s infrastructural limitations, judicial precedents, and the ultimate objective of preventing disenfranchisement.
A key flashpoint in the debate was the question of electronic transmission of results. For many reform advocates, real-time electronic transmission became symbolic of transparency. Yet Akpabio’s argument was not against technology; it was against rigidity detached from capacity. He consistently maintained that technology must serve democracy, not endanger it. In a country where broadband penetration is uneven, where insecurity disrupts network infrastructure across multiple states, and where power supply remains inconsistent, embedding inflexible “real-time” mandates into statute could, in his view, expose elections to avoidable litigations and invalidation.
This perspective aligns with the constitutional role of the legislature. The Senate does not conduct elections; it makes laws. The responsibility for operational modalities rests with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which applies the law within its administrative and technical capacity. By leaving room for INEC to determine timing and modalities of transmission, the Act reflects a respect for institutional boundaries. Akpabio’s defense of this approach underscores his insistence that Parliament legislate for posterity, not for transient political advantage.
At the State House signing ceremony, President Tinubu reinforced this institutional clarity. He observed that Nigeria’s elections remain “essentially manual.” Ballots are cast manually, counted manually, and declared by human beings. While electronic viewing enhances transparency, the core process remains human-centered. Tinubu’s caution about broadband readiness and cyber vulnerabilities echoes Akpabio’s reasoning. Together, their statements project a governance philosophy that privileges clarity and feasibility over performative reform.
Perhaps the most celebrated innovation in the new Act is the formal legal recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) result viewer, commonly referred to as IReV. This recognition represents a significant milestone. For the first time since independence in 1960, electronic viewing of polling unit results is explicitly grounded in statutory authority. Under the amended framework, results transmitted electronically—even if delayed due to connectivity issues—must ultimately reflect on the IReV portal once network is restored. This creates a verifiable digital trail that citizens, observers, and parties can scrutinize and interrogate.
Akpabio described this as a landmark safeguard against a historic problem: tampering between polling units and collation centres. By ensuring that Form EC8A—the primary polling unit result form signed by presiding officers and party agents—feeds into a publicly accessible portal, the law strengthens accountability without discarding manual collation procedures validated by courts.
The Supreme Court’s pronouncements in post-2023 election litigation had clarified that IReV, as previously configured, was not the definitive legal record of results. Rather than ignore this judicial interpretation, the legislature responded by integrating electronic viewing into statutory text while preserving the evidentiary primacy of signed result forms. This harmonization of law and jurisprudence illustrates legislative maturity.
Critics, including the opposition parties, alleged that the Act’s signing reflected partisan fear. Civil society voices such as Yiaga Africa described the reform as incremental where transformation was needed. Yet even among critics, a pragmatic thread emerged.
The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre and the Transition Monitoring Group urged acceptance of the law while focusing attention on demanding credible conduct from INEC. This convergence suggests that while disagreements persist about optimal reform design, there is recognition that institutional strengthening is iterative.
Akpabio’s stance during earlier debates further illuminates his approach. On February 8, at a public presentation of Senator Effiong Bob’s book in Abuja, he cautioned against hasty conclusions about an amendment process still underway. His insistence that commentators wait until Votes and Proceedings were finalized before passing judgment reflects a proceduralist ethos.
Legislative drafting is iterative. Clauses are debated, amended, harmonized between chambers, and only then crystallized into final text. By defending this process against what he termed premature media trials, Akpabio positioned himself as a guardian of institutional integrity.
His critique of “retreat politics” is equally telling. Consultative retreats, he argued, are valuable but not binding. Final authority rests on the Senate floor, where clauses are debated and voted upon. This distinction reinforces parliamentary sovereignty within Nigeria’s constitutional framework. It also shows a deeper democratic principle: advocacy informs lawmaking, but elected representatives deliberate and decide.
Another noteworthy provision in the amended Act concerns internal party democracy. By empowering party members to vote directly for candidates during primaries, the law dilutes the dominance of small delegate blocs. In theory, this broadens participation, reduces transactional politics, and enhances legitimacy. Akpabio’s highlighting of this reform signals an understanding that electoral integrity begins within parties, not merely at polling units.
The Act also addresses scenarios where leading candidates are disqualified by courts. By mandating fresh elections in such circumstances, it prevents outcomes where significantly lower-polling candidates assume office by default. This provision closes a loophole that had generated controversy in past cycles. In doing so, the legislature strengthens the moral authority of electoral outcomes.
The reduction of statutory notice for elections from 360 days to 300 days, may appear technical but carries practical implications. It allows scheduling flexibility, including the possibility of avoiding sensitive religious periods such as Ramadan and Lent. This demonstrates legislative sensitivity to socio-cultural realities—a recurring theme in Akpabio’s rhetoric about Nigeria’s peculiarities.
Opposition criticisms deserve engagement. The PDP characterized the signing as hurried and partisan. Yet the legislative timeline reflects deliberation across chambers, conference committee harmonization, and eventual executive assent. Moreover, the principle of the legislative-executive cooperation is intrinsic to constitutional governance. The swift assent by President Tinubu can be interpreted not as haste but as responsiveness to parliamentary consensus.
Support from figures like Nyesom Wike reinforces the perception that the reform commands cross-sectional backing within the governing architecture. Wike’s description of democracy as a “work-in-progress” aligns with Akpabio’s incrementalist philosophy. Reform, in this view, is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
Central to Akpabio’s defense is the rejection of absolutism. Mandating real-time electronic transmission in a context of infrastructural fragility could render entire states’ results vulnerable to nullification due to network outages. He invoked comparative examples, including electoral disputes in advanced democracies, to illustrate that even technologically sophisticated systems encounter anomalies. The lesson he draws is humility: laws must anticipate worst-case scenarios.
This caution is not synonymous with conservatism. By embedding IReV recognition in statute, the Act advances transparency beyond previous frameworks. It creates a hybrid model—manual voting and collation complemented by electronic visibility. Such hybridity may represent a uniquely Nigerian pathway, blending global best practices with domestic constraints.
Akpabio’s rhetorical framing—distinguishing “noise” from lawmaking—has attracted attention. While critics may interpret it as dismissive, it also speaks to a tension in contemporary democracies: the amplification of vocal minorities through media ecosystems. Legislative legitimacy, however, derives from electoral mandate and constitutional procedure. By emphasizing the “generality of Nigerians,” Akpabio situates himself within a majoritarian democratic theory tempered by rule of law.
The question of disenfranchisement further illuminates his position. If technological failure in insecure or rural areas invalidated results, marginalized communities could bear disproportionate impact. By allowing delayed electronic uploads once connectivity is restored, the Act seeks to reconcile inclusivity with transparency. This compromise reflects distributive sensitivity.
In evaluating Akpabio’s stewardship, one must also consider his broader legislative philosophy. He repeatedly asserts that laws must outlast individuals. This intergenerational perspective discourages tailoring statutes to immediate partisan contests. Whether one agrees with every clause, the emphasis on durability highlights a statesmanlike orientation.
The reactions from civil society, though critical, implicitly acknowledge the dynamic nature of reform. Calls to continue advocating improvements indicate that the 2026 Act is part of an ongoing process. Akpabio himself has stated that doors remain open. This openness suggests confidence rather than defensiveness.
Ultimately, the measure of electoral reform lies not only in statutory text but in implementation. INEC’s capacity, political party behavior, judicial adjudication, and citizen vigilance will shape outcomes. Yet legislation provides the framework within which these actors operate. By integrating electronic viewing, clarifying collation hierarchies, strengthening internal party democracy, and closing disqualification loopholes, the National Assembly has recalibrated that framework.
In positioning Akpabio in a favorable light, it is important to avoid hagiography. Democratic leadership entails contestation. However, his consistent themes—respect for process, infrastructural realism, institutional boundaries, and posterity—form a coherent narrative. Rather than capitulate to populist maximalism or resist reform altogether, he charted a middle course.
Nigeria’s democracy, like many across the globe, navigates between aspiration and capacity. Technological for determinism offers seductive simplicity; constitutional prudence demands complexity. In the crucible of electoral reform, Akpabio has presented himself as a custodian of that prudence. Whether history ultimately vindicates every provision of the 2026 Act will depend on future elections. But as of its enactment, the legislative record reflects a deliberate attempt to harmonize innovation with stability.
The broader democratic project requires precisely this balance. Transparency without feasibility breeds litigation. Feasibility without transparency breeds distrust. By embedding electronic visibility within a manual backbone, the Act seeks equilibrium. In championing this architecture, Akpabio aligns himself with a vision of reform that is incremental yet substantive, cautious yet forward-moving.
As Nigeria approaches future electoral cycles, the real test will be whether citizens experience greater confidence, fewer disputes, and clearer outcomes. Should that occur, the painstaking deliberations defended by the Senate President may be remembered not as noise, but as necessary groundwork. In that sense, Akpabio’s insistence that lawmaking differ from clamor may prove less a rebuke than a reminder: democracy flourishes not only through passion, but through patient construction of rules capable of enduring the storms of politics. Nigeria’s Electoral Future shall  have Senator Godswill Akpabio positively mentioned in its repository.
•Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh mnipr
Special Adviser on Media/Publicity and official Spokesperson to the President of the Senate

Share this story:
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Amaechi laments: Tinubu abysmally incompetent! *Nigerians dying like flies!

Published

18 hours ago

on

March 18, 2026

By

“This government is killing Nigerians. I repeat, President Tinubu’s government is killing Nigerians, literally destroying lives. He has failed in the most sacred duty of protecting the lives of the citizens of this country.”

These were the exact words of Rotimi Amaechi, former Minister of Transportation, with which he lashed out at President Bola Tinubu, accusing his administration of failing to protect the lives and property of Nigerians.

The former Governor of Rivers State, who conveyed his position via a statement on Tuesday by his media office, bemoaned the bomb blast that rocked parts of Maiduguri, the Borno State capital on Monday, attributing it to the abysmally incompetent government of the President, whom he said and lacked the basic leadership skills required to safeguard citizens.

Commiserating with the families of the victims, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) chieftain said Nigerians cannot continue to mourn while the government “lives lavishly and ostentatiously” without taking decisive action to end the country’s insecurity.

Advertisement

His words: “The Monday bombings in Maiduguri is not just a tragedy, it is a damning indictment of a leadership that has grown complacent, incompetent, and indifferent to the sufferings and death of Nigerians to ravaging bandits.

“While families mourn and communities live in fear, those in power issue hollow statements and make empty promises. In fact, now, they don’t bother to make promises anymore. They just move on as if nothing happened. Tinubu would rather be dining and partying in London while Nigeria burns. They just don’t care!

“How many more lives must be lost before they admit their failure? How many more communities must be shattered and destroyed before they take decisive action? Insecurity has become the daily reality of ordinary citizens, and yet the government continues to stumble, unprepared and unwilling to confront the menace with the seriousness it demands.

“Nigerians deserve safety, peace, and dignity, not negligence and continued excuses. If those in power cannot guarantee that, then they have no business clinging to authority. Leadership is not about rhetoric, it is about responsibility, action, and making the right decisions for the good of the people. Right now, this government has abandoned that responsibility, and the nation is paying the price.”

Empathising with the people of Borno State and the victims’ families, whose lives he said were “shattered because of Tinubu’s government failure to protect them,” the former Minister added: “Enough is enough. The President must resign.”

Advertisement

Share this story:
Continue Reading

News

BREAKING! No Way! Senegal protests loss of AFCON title, heads to CAS

Published

19 hours ago

on

March 18, 2026

By

Senegal has announced that it is heading upstairs with an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport the after as Les Lions de la Téranga (The Lions of Teranga), its national team was stripped of the Africa Cup of Nations title on Tuesday.

Established in 1984, the CAS, an independent organisation that resolves sports disputes worldwide has tailored procedural rules to render impartial decisions through arbitration and mediation, while bodies and athletes assign it the judicial authority to uphold an equal and just application of sporting regulations.

“The Senegalese Football Federation condemns this unjust, unprecedented and unacceptable decision, which brings African football into disrepute.

“To defend its rights and the interests of Senegalese football, the federation will, as soon as possible, file an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne,” a statement from the West African country, said hours after the CAF hammer fell on it for the behaviour of the team, which the confederation considered abandonment of the game in the AFCON 2025 finals.

Advertisement

Several Senegalese players controversially walked off the pitch in Rabat during the final on January 18 in protest when the hosts were awarded a penalty late in second-half stoppage time.

After Senegal’s players eventually returned having been coaxed back onto the pitch by captain Sadio Mane, Morocco missed the penalty and Pape Gueye went on to score the goal in extra time that gave his team a 1-0 victory.

CAF said that having studied Morocco’s appeal, “the Senegal national team is declared to have forfeited the match” and the result was “officially recorded as 3-0” in favour of Morocco.

The CAF Appeals Committee justified its decision by applying Articles 82 and 84 of the AFCON Regulations, which state that if a team “refuses to play or leaves the ground before the regular end of the match without the authorisation of the referee, it shall be considered (loser) and shall be eliminated for good from the current competition while losing its match by 3-0.

The Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) said in a statement its appeal was never intended to contest the sporting performance of the teams participating in this competition, but solely to request the application of the competition regulations.

Advertisement

It added: “The Federation reaffirms its commitment to respecting the rules, to the clarity of the competitive framework, and to the stability of African competitions.”

Vowing to appeal “as soon as possible” to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Senegal’s football body, stated: “The Senegalese Football Federation condemns this unjust, unprecedented and unacceptable decision, which brings African football into disrepute.”

Minutes before the end of the match, some Senegalese supporters attempted a pitch invasion, while Senegal’s players halted the game for nearly 20 minutes to protest the late penalty awarded to Morocco.

The controversial spot-kick was awarded by Congolese referee Jean-Jacques Ndala right at the end of the allotted eight added minutes in normal time following a VAR check for a challenge on Brahim Diaz by El Hadji Malick Diouf.

The game was goalless at the time and Diaz could have won the trophy for Morocco with the spot-kick in the 24th minute of added time at the end of normal time.

Advertisement

But Senegal goalkeeper Edouard Mendy easily saved the weak attempted ‘Panenka’ chip by the Real Madrid winger, who was clearly distracted by the long delay that followed the penalty award.

The game at the Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium then went to extra time, and Gueye’s brilliant 94th-minute strike won it for Senegal.

Several of the team’s players posted on social media after the announcement that they had been stripped of the title.

Defender Moussa Niakhate, who plays for French club Lyon, posted a picture of himself lifting the Africa Cup of Nations trophy with a message that said “they’re mad”, in an apparent reference to CAF.

In the immediate aftermath of the final, FIFA president Gianni Infantino had condemned “some Senegal players” for the “unacceptable scenes”.

Advertisement

“It is unacceptable to leave the field of play in this manner, and equally, violence cannot be tolerated in our sport, it is simply not right,” Infantino, who attended the match, said.

In late January, CAF imposed a series of disciplinary sanctions, including fines amounting to several hundred thousand euros, on the federations of both countries for unsportsmanlike conduct and violations of fair play principles.

The appeal trial of 18 Senegalese supporters, imprisoned since the final and sentenced to prison terms ranging from three months to one year for “hooliganism,” which was scheduled to take place on Monday, has been postponed until March 30.

Advertisement
Share this story:
Continue Reading

News

Who will feed my family? *Maiduguri blast victims cry out in distress!

Published

19 hours ago

on

March 18, 2026

By

“We broke our fast and were about to leave after closing our shops when the first bomb detonated. I heard a loud sound and suddenly my neck started bleeding.”

These were the exact words of Abacha Mustapha, one of the victims of the Monday night’s bomb blasts that rocked parts of Maiduguri, Borno State – one of those currently recounting their ordeals in the ugly incident.

The multiple explosions said to have occurred simultaneously, came on a day President Bola Tinubu, while jetting out to the United Kingdom on a State Visit, ordered Service Chiefs to relocate to Maiduguri to take charge of the situation.

Though the police put the death toll to 23 and the wounded to 108, independent witnesses say the fatalities were as many as 40, as the incident has continued to generate a lot of public outcries with many calling on concerted action by the Federal Government to deal with the situation decisively.

Advertisement

Mustapha, who spoke from his bed at Umaru Shehu Hospital, Maiduguri, said the impact of the blast threw people into confusion as traders and residents scampered for safety.

His words: “It was chaotic. People were running in different directions. Some fell, others were shouting. I couldn’t even understand what had happened at first. My brother used his cloth to tie my neck to stop the bleeding before rushing me to the hospital. If not for him, I don’t know what would have happened.”

Mohammed Jubril, while giving his own account, said he could not explain how he survived the blasts as it happened very close to where he had gone to make payment for items he bought hours earlier.

‘’The blast deafened me immediately as I could no longer hear anything.  People were running in different directions. The whole place was covered in smoke and I saw many people lying on the floor with injuries. As I speak with you, I cannot hear anything,’’ he said.

For Hauwa Sanusi, who claimed her younger sister had been missing since the blasts, appealed to all concerned to help locate her sister, saying almost in tears: “I don’t know what has become of my sister.  She’s been missing since yesterday (Monday).  We have visited some hospitals and couldn’t find her.  We are in pain, please help us.”

Advertisement

Another survivor and a bricklayer at Umaru Shehu UltraModern Hospital, Bulumkutu, who sustained injuries on his legs and right hand, expressed worry over how his family could get food to eat, being the only bread-winner of the family.

“I am a father of five children, though I have to thank God for sparing my life, I am a bit worried over who will put food on the table for the children as my wife is jobless, and here I am on admission,” he cried.

At the State Specialist Hospital, Nura Bukar, who sustained a minor injury on his forehead, but was hospitalised due to heavy bleeding and needed blood transfusion, called on good Samaritans to visit the hospital and donate blood, saying there were many victims in critical condition who needed immediate blood  transfusion to save their lives.

Aisha Mallum Gana, a victim in the female ward of Umaru Shehu Ultramodern Hospital, Maiduguri, who narrated how she was preparing to leave the market after the day’s activities when the explosion occurred, said: “I sell soft drinks at the Post Office area. I was about to close for the day when the blast occurred. Thank God that I sustained minor injuries on my face and my legs. I am seriously responding to treatment.”

The Chief Medica Director of UMTH, Professor Ahmed Ahijo, said 25 people were confirmed dead, while over 70 were currently responding to treatment in the hospital.

Advertisement

However, though witnesses said over 40 persons were killed by the blasts, Borno State police command said 23 people lost their lives, while 108 were injured in the suicide bomb blasts that rocked Post Office area, Monday Market and the main entrance of the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital, UMTH.

“More than 40 civilians, including the suicide bombers, were killed, as some of the injured ones died while receiving treatment at medical facilities within the metropolis,’’ a witness said.

Share this story:
Continue Reading

Trending