Mr Igini warns that provisions in the Electoral Act 2026 could enable ballot manipulation and weaken election petitions, raising fresh concerns about transparency and credibility ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general elections.
A former official of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mike Igini, has raised concerns over what he described as “dangerous” provisions in the amended Electoral Act, warning that they could undermine the credibility of the 2027 general elections if left unaddressed.
The Electoral Act 2026 was signed into law by President Bola Tinubu in February.
Speaking during an interview on Arise News TV on Wednesday, Mr Igini said he had identified specific sections of the law that reintroduce loopholes previously exploited to manipulate election outcomes.
According to him, Section 63 of the Electoral Act 2026, which deals with the rejection of ballot papers without official marks, grants excessive discretion to electoral officers.
He pointed specifically to subsection 2, which states that a ballot paper without an official security feature of INEC should be counted if the returning officer is “satisfied” that it originated from the appropriate ballot book.
“The presiding officer has been given the discretion to accept a ballot paper notwithstanding the absence of an official mark and to count that ballot paper. What that means is that before this election, politicians who have access to the security features of INEC ballots are going to print their ballot papers,” Mr Igini said, describing the provision as “dangerous.”
Mr Igini noted that the use of the word “satisfied” had been in Section 49 of the Electoral Act 2010 and had taken nearly 12 years to repeal due to its susceptibility to abuse.
Beyond ballot handling, Mr Igini also raised concerns about Section 138(2) of the Act, which limits the grounds upon which election results can be challenged.
“They (the law) are saying that presiding officers, assistant presiding officers can abandon it,” he said, referring to INEC’s regulations and guidelines, which he argued are effectively weakened by the provision.
According to him, the section implies that violations of INEC guidelines alone may not be sufficient grounds to question election outcomes, a situation he described as one of the long-standing “rigging provisions” that had been resisted in the past.
Commenting further on Section 138, which states that: “An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of election but which is not contrary to the provision of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election.”
Mr Igini said Section 138 has been “one of the rigging provisions that we have cried out to be removed,” adding that the instructions and directives of INEC are contained in its regulations and guidelines.
“They (the law) are saying that a presiding officer and other INEC officials can abandon it,” he said, referring to INEC guidelines and regulations.
Mr Igini also criticised Section 137, which outlines persons entitled to present election petitions, arguing that it shields electoral officials from direct accountability.
The provision states that where a petitioner complains about the conduct of an electoral officer, it is not necessary to join that officer in the petition, as INEC would defend the case on their behalf.
According to Mr Igini, this framework weakens accountability mechanisms.
“Some unscrupulous members of our commission gave the security features of ballot papers to politicians. When INEC went to the court to say that the document is not its document, the tribunal upheld a forged document.”
Mr Igini said his concerns are informed by past experiences within the electoral system.
Under his watch, INEC prosecuted and secured convictions of two professors who served as returning officers in the 2019 general elections for falsifying results. One of the cases involved falsification in favour of Godswill Akpabio, who lost the senatorial election that year but later won in 2023 and became the Senate president.
He also recalled how electoral malpractice is often facilitated at the operational level, and said he trained ad hoc officials and warned that they would be prosecuted if they failed to adhere to INEC guidelines and regulations during the elections.
“But the following day, politicians shared monies in dollars to the ad hoc staff, telling them they would not be invited to the Tribunal to defend their actions because the law shielded them from prosecution,” Mr Igini said, arguing that the Electoral Act 2026 has reintroduced that protection to ad hoc staff.
Mr Igini called for urgent amendments to the identified provisions before the 2027 elections, warning that failure to act could erode public trust in Nigeria’s electoral system.
His concerns come amid ongoing debates about electoral reforms and the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic processes ahead of the next general elections.
INEC spokesperson, Mohammed Haruna, did not respond to calls and a text message seeking his comment as of the time of filing this report.
