News

How Akpabio’s leadership secured Nigeria’s electoral future

Published

2 months ago

February 20, 2026

Whirlwindnews

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:

News

Missing Engineers Saga: Wives Disagree with Umahi’s Version

Published

6 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Babatunde Bello

The wives of the five engineers allegedly murdered in Ebonyi State yesterday rejected the comments attributed to the Minister of Works, Dave Umahi, on the development, describing it as an attempt to “sweep the truth under the carpet”. The group renewed calls for an independent reinvestigation into the case.

Nelson Onyemeh, Ernest Edeani, Ikechukwu Ejiofor, Samuel Aneke, and Stanley Nwazulum were reportedly kidnapped in November 2021 while supervising construction work on the Abakaliki Ring Road project.

The protesting women, whose husbands were consultants with NELAN Engineering firm, accused authorities of inconsistencies, interference, and a possible cover-up in the handling of the case, which dates back to November 3, 2021.

In a statement, Mrs. Patricia Onyemeh, Mrs. Lovette Edeani, Mrs. Ifeoma Ejiofor, Mrs. Esther Aneke, and Mrs. Nwazulum faulted Umahi’s claim that the engineers were victims of a communal crisis, as they insisted no such conflict occurred at the time.

They said: “The characterisation of the disappearance of the five engineers as a consequence of communal crisis is completely outrageous, misconceived, and flawed.” The engineers, according to the families, travelled to Ebonyi for an official meeting linked to the African Development Bank-funded ring road project when Umahi was governor.

They said: “Credible accounts indicate that our husbands were last seen in connection with official engagements tied to the Ebonyi Ring Road project. “This raises serious questions as to whether the incident can be fairly reduced to communal violence.”

They further alleged that while investigations were ongoing, Umahi announced that the engineers had been killed and buried, a move they said raised “serious suspicions”. The women said: “This announcement by a sitting governor, while security agencies were still tracking movements, raises grave concerns.”

The women also questioned the sudden removal of a Department of State Services (DSS) investigator, Victor Onyesom, who was reportedly handling the case.

They further accused the police of presenting unidentified skeletal remains to the families without conducting DNA tests. The group said: “The police claimed the remains were those of our husbands, but refused DNA testing.

Share this story:

News

Stay out of trouble! *Stop parroting Elumelu’s fake divorce story – UBA

Published

15 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Whirlwindnews

You risk getting into trouble if you by any means, join in spreading the rumour that Tony O. Elumelu, because it is manifestly false, United Bank for Africa, one of the establishments of the popular Nigerian business mogul, warned on Monday.

Against the backdrop of rumours spreading across the social media, the bank rejected the claims as fake and damaging, saying at no time did the industrialist and Chairman of the Heirs Holdings, divorce his wife, Awele Vivien Elumelu.

The bank, in a statement, which also described the story as also defamatory, and malicious publication, the statement said: “These statements and all similar content are entirely fabricated, reckless, and without basis. The claims are a deliberate falsehood designed to mislead the public and cause reputational harm.”

Stressing that the matter had been reported to law enforcement authorities, the statement, signed by Alero Ladipo, confirmed that three people linked to the publication had been arrested.

Naming those involved in spreading the rumour as Mr Kingsley Akunemeihe (@Directorkem), Mr Chigozie Success Ihebom, and Mr John Surpruchi Nwanorue (@problemchimky), the bank informed that investigations were ongoing and could lead to more arrests and prosecutions.

The statement added: “Investigations are ongoing and are expected to lead to further arrests and prosecutions of all persons involved in originating, amplifying, or sustaining this defamatory campaign. This serves as a formal notice to all individuals, platforms, and entities involved in the publication, reposting, or continued dissemination of this content to immediately cease and desist.

“Failure to comply will result in the initiation of legal proceedings, including claims for defamation, injunctive relief, damages, and any other remedies available under applicable law.

“The UBA Group is resolute in protecting the reputation, privacy, and integrity of our brand, that of Mr. Elumelu and will pursue all necessary legal avenues — civil and criminal — to ensure that all responsible parties are identified and held accountable.”

Share this story:

News

Wike group rejects BoT’s new leadership for PDP *Caretaker C’ttee, a joke

Published

18 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Whirlwindnews

Abdulrahman Mohammad, National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), belonging to the camp of Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), all but scoffed at the 13-member Interim National Working Committee (INWC), raised by the party’s Board of Trustees (BoT) as a non-event.

In a statement, shortly after the committee was announced by Adolphus Wabara, PDP BoT Chairman, Mohammed dismissed claims upon which the body rested its decision after its 103rd National Executive Committee (NEC), describing the development as illegitimate and misleading.

The embattled party boss, who conveyed his position through, Jungudo Mohammed, spokesman of the camp, said: “The PDP wishes to categorically state that no such meeting was convened by the leadership of the party. Consequently, any resolutions, announcements, or claims emanating from that gathering are null, void, and of no effect.”

Stressing the irony in individuals he claimed previously opposed the idea of a caretaker committee, now embracing it, he said every NEC meeting must be preceded with due notification to the Independent National Electoral Commission to be valied.

Hear him: “Even if, for the sake of argument, they possessed the legal authority to convene such a meeting (which they do not), they have once again failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

“Specifically, the mandatory requirement to give the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) a minimum of 21 days’ notice for such a meeting was blatantly ignored. There is no evidence of compliance, nor was INEC in attendance as required by law. This alone renders their actions null and void.”

Mohammed questioned the authority of the BoT, a mere advisory body to raise the 13-man committee led by Taminu Turaki, saying such a move ran against the grains of the PDP constitution, urging relevant regulatory bodies to examine the conduct of those involved, particularly members of the senior bar.

Describing the development as part of a pattern, the party said the alleged NEC meeting was a continuation of earlier failed attempts to create confusion within its ranks.

His words: “We therefore call on all party members, stakeholders, and the general public to completely disregard this illegitimate assembly and its outcomes. It has no constitutional basis, no legal standing, and no binding authority whatsoever.

“The PDP remains committed to upholding its constitution, the rule of law, and democratic principles under the able leadership of Abdulrahman Mohammad and Senator Samuel N. Anyawu.”

Share this story: