Groups Fault Last-minute Amendments In 2026 Electoral Act

Civil society organisations (CSOs) have expressed concern over the passage of the Electoral Act 2026, saying that the last-minute amendments undermined transparency and electoral integrity ahead of the 2027 elections.

The organisations stated this in Abuja yesterday at a joint press conference on the newly passed Electoral Bill by the National Assembly.

The CSOs are Centre for Media and Society (CEMESO), the Kukah Centre, International Press Centre (IPC), ElectHer, Nigerian Women Trust Fund, TAF Africa, and Yiaga Africa.

On behalf of the groups, the founder of TAF Africa, Jake Epelle, demanded a clear regulations to safeguard the next general elections.

“The Electoral Act 2026 that has now been signed into law is a missed opportunity for the transformative electoral reform that Nigeria requires and that Nigerian citizens deserve.

“At a time when public confidence in elections remains fragile, this law should have decisively strengthened transparency, eliminated ambiguities, and deepened safeguards against manipulation. Instead, it creates more vulnerabilities in the electoral process.”

The coalition also criticised the limited debate on critical clauses, including provisions relating to the real-time electronic transmission of results.

“Legislative changes introduced in the final hours, without publication, scrutiny, or structured debate, are inconsistent with the transparency standards expected in democratic lawmaking,” Epelle said.

The coalition therefore, outlined immediate priorities for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and political actors.

They called on INEC to issue a revised 2027 election timetable reflecting the new 300-day notice requirement and publish comprehensive regulations under Section 151 to clarify definitions, procedures, and monitoring standards.

The CSOs also called urged Government to conduct a nationwide electronic transmission simulation to test connectivity and identify vulnerabilities, while urging political parties to commit publicly to defending electronic transmission and documenting any suspicious failures.

The National Assembly was also urged to publish the signed Electoral Act 2026 promptly for public awareness and legal clarity.

“The assent to the Electoral Act 2026 is not the end of the reform process. It is the beginning of the implementation phase, and civil society will be present, vigilant, and vocal at every stage.

“It is our responsibility as citizens, media, and civil society to ensure that elections conducted under this law are credible, transparent, inclusive, and reflective of the will of the Nigerian people,” he added.

Meanwhile, the National Assembly has explained why it acted swiftly to strengthen the electoral timeline, following the passage of the electoral bill.

Responding to interview questions at the conference, the spokesperson and Chairman of the House Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Rep. Akin Rotimi, said the House is committed to changing public perceptions about legislative engagement.

“We made it a point of duty that this House was going to change the minds of Nigerians about how we engage. Every one of our 360 members continues to push the boundaries of what you might otherwise not have believed possible.

“We are always happy to engage. This is an investment in an ongoing conversation, so even if we cannot address all questions immediately, we will always be available,” Rotimi said.

Addressing questions about why the House adopted the Senate’s position on certain provisions, he said; “There are differences in the Senate and House positions, our rules state that a conference committee cannot introduce new provisions.

“It must only consider what is before it from the House or the Senate. The committee was bipartisan, including members from APC, APGA, Labour Party, and PDP, with 12 from the House and 12 from the Senate.”

Rotimi added that emergent issues related to electoral timelines necessitated an emergency meeting to complement the conference committee and provide legal grounds for introducing new provisions.

“Concerning section 63, the wording that emerged was entirely new. It was neither the Senate’s nor the House’s original provisions. It responded to public feedback and provided greater clarity on the electoral process.”