‘Fraudulent Provisions’ In Electoral Act Not In Bill’s Original Draft — Kingibe

Senator representing the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) at the Upper legislative chamber, Ireti Kingibe, has raised concerns over what she described as “fraudulent provisions” in Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026, alleging that clauses permitting the use of ballot papers without official security features were not part of the original draft of the Bill developed by stakeholders.

Speaking on Prime Time show on Arise News Channel on Monday night, Kingibe questioned the credibility of the current provisions and criticised the leadership of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

“The fraudulent provisions that permit ballot papers without INEC security features in the new Electoral Act were not in the original version. It’s different,” she said.

The lawmaker further alleged bias on the part of the INEC chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, stating, “INEC chairman has shown he is not unbiased.”

Kingibe, who was part of the Senate committee that worked on electoral reforms, insisted that the controversial provisions were absent from the document originally agreed upon after extensive consultations.

“I was in the committee for the Electoral Reforms. They were not in the original ones. I spoke to somebody about it; I said, ‘I can show you the documents I have’. Since when, in what election have we ever conducted where INEC ballot papers did not have security measures that you can bring any type of ballot paper and vote with it? It’s never happened,” she said.

She explained that the reform process lasted two years and involved multiple stakeholders, including members of the National Assembly, INEC officials, and civil society organisations (CSOs).

“We worked on a document that was acceptable and we did it bicameral sitting. So it was not just the Senate, but the Senate and the House sat as well as with INEC and some CSOs and came up with a document that we felt would give us free and fair election. We brought it and every aspect of it was turned upside down. Now tell me why?” she added.

The female lawmaker also questioned the rationale behind investing in electoral technology while making its use optional.

“Why go to the expense of electronic and digital devices if you say you don’t have to use them? Why bother?” she queried.

On the possibility of amending the new Electoral Act, Kingibe expressed cautious optimism, however, noting that public pressure could drive legislative action.

“Well, let’s just say that once upon a time, there was doctrine of necessity. When there’s need for it, things will be amended,” she said.

When pressed further on whether there was a need for such an amendment, she responded, “Oh, there’s definitely a need for it.”

Kingibe concluded that sustained advocacy would be key to achieving any review of the law.

“If there’s enough pressure, it will be,” she added.