No Excuses, No Bias: The Constitutional Test of Nigeria’s 2027 Election —By Lanre Ogundipe

When the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, stated that the Commission cannot guarantee a “perfect” election in 2027, the public reaction was swift and uneasy. In a democracy where electoral confidence has been repeatedly tested, such language inevitably triggers concern. Many interpreted the remark as a lowering of expectations. Others saw it as a warning about technological vulnerability, particularly in relation to electronic transmission of results.

Yet beneath the anxiety lies a constitutional reality that must be understood if the debate is to be productive: Nigeria is not required to conduct perfect elections. It is required to conduct credible ones.

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria mandates INEC, under Section 153 and Paragraph 15 of the Third Schedule, to organise, undertake, and supervise elections. The legal benchmark applied by Nigerian courts in electoral disputes is substantial compliance, not flawlessness. Elections are not nullified because mistakes occurred; they are invalidated when non-compliance is substantial enough to affect the result.

Perfection is aspirational. Credibility is constitutional.
A perfect election would imply zero logistical delays, zero human error, zero equipment malfunction, zero disputes, zero litigation. No democracy in the world achieves that standard. The United States conducts recounts and post-election audits. India pairs electronic voting machines with voter-verifiable paper audit trails to ensure manual confirmation of digital votes. The United Kingdom still counts ballots manually in most constituencies.

What sustains democracy is not the absence of imperfection. It is integrity under imperfection.
This distinction becomes especially important in Nigeria’s ongoing debate over electronic transmission of results. The Electoral Act 2022 strengthened technological integration in the electoral process, particularly the use of electronic accreditation and result transmission. These reforms were designed to improve transparency and reduce opportunities for manipulation during collation.

Electronic transmission is, in principle, a transparency tool. When it functions properly, it enhances visibility and public trust. But technology is not infallible. Network instability, hardware failure, server congestion, and power disruptions are operational realities. The experience of the 2023 elections revealed that technological ambition must be matched by infrastructural preparedness.

When digital systems falter without clear communication, suspicion grows quickly.
However, the solution is not to elevate electronic transmission into a sacred doctrine nor to discard manual safeguards entirely. No serious democracy relies exclusively on a single technological layer without redundancy. In the United States, electronic ballots are backed by paper trails for recounts. In India, electronic systems operate alongside physical verification slips. Germany’s Constitutional Court has insisted that electoral processes must remain publicly verifiable without reliance on opaque technical systems.
Technology enhances efficiency.

Documentation protects legitimacy.
Manual collation, therefore, is not inherently regressive. It becomes problematic only when it departs from strict statutory procedure. Nigeria’s past electoral controversies did not arise simply because manual processes existed. They arose because deviations were alleged, explanations were delayed, and procedural consistency was questioned.

Where polling unit results are publicly announced, recorded on statutory forms, signed by party agents, visibly posted, and transmitted in accordance with law, manual documentation reinforces credibility. Where discretionary alteration or procedural improvisation creeps in, credibility collapses.

Yet there is another dimension to this debate that must not be ignored.
Recent commentary from a former INEC official, reported by News Express, raises concerns that the Electoral Act 2026 still contains loopholes and drafting ambiguities that could undermine transparency if not addressed.

According to that perspective, frequent amendments and re-enactments of electoral laws risk weakening institutional stability. Sections 50, 60, and 62 of the Act have been identified as containing potential ambiguities capable of varied interpretation, particularly regarding collation and transmission procedures.

If such legal ambiguities persist, the challenge in 2027 will not merely be technological. It will be statutory.
Laws must be clear enough to prevent discretionary exploitation. Electoral credibility depends as much on precise drafting as on faithful implementation. Where the law leaves room for inconsistent interpretation, suspicion thrives.

Stability in electoral legislation is itself a safeguard. Constant tinkering can inadvertently convert reform into uncertainty.
This is why the constitutional test of 2027 rests on three non-negotiable pillars.

ADVERTISEMENT

First, strict adherence to the Electoral Act. Electoral rules must be followed exactly as enacted. No selective interpretation. No improvisational shortcuts. Where the law prescribes sequence, documentation, or collation hierarchy, compliance must be uniform nationwide. Fidelity to statute is the foundation of credibility.

Second, technological transparency with auditability. Electronic transmission must operate with verifiable audit trails and clearly defined contingency procedures. Where disruptions occur, explanations must be immediate and public.

Discrepancies between electronic uploads and physical forms must be reconciled through documented and accessible processes. Transparency during difficulty builds more confidence than silence during smooth operation.

Third, visible institutional impartiality. An electoral body must not only be independent; it must be demonstrably neutral. Nigeria’s political history has produced recurring perceptions that incumbents benefit from institutional proximity. Whether justified or exaggerated, such perceptions erode legitimacy. INEC’s conduct in 2027 must reflect disciplined distance from partisan influence and consistent enforcement of regulations across all political actors.

Democracy does not collapse because systems experience strain. It collapses when institutions appear partial.
Professor Amupitan’s acknowledgment that perfection cannot be guaranteed should therefore be interpreted as realism, not resignation. Nigeria conducts elections across vast geography, infrastructural strain, and intense political competition.

No serious electoral authority anywhere would promise flawlessness.
But realism must never become excuse.
If electronic uploads fail at a polling unit, fallback procedures must activate immediately and uniformly. If manual collation proceeds, it must strictly follow statutory chains. If legal ambiguities exist within the Electoral Act, they must be clarified well before polling day. If citizens detect inconsistencies, institutions must respond transparently and lawfully.

Ultimately, the electorate should not demand miracles. It should demand measurable improvement, disciplined adherence to law, and unmistakable neutrality.

Nigeria does not need an election without errors. It needs an election without bias.
Perfection may be beyond institutional reach. Integrity is not.

The constitutional minimum is not utopia; it is credibility anchored in law, transparency, and impartiality.
In 2027, the democratic verdict will not turn on whether glitches occur. It will turn on whether the rules are obeyed, whether technology is managed transparently, and whether the electoral umpire stands visibly above partisan contest.
No excuses. No ambiguity. No bias.
That is the constitutional test Nigeria must meet.

Ogundipe, Public Affairs Analyst, former President Nigeria and Africa Union of Journalists writes from Abuja.
March 3, 2026.