Opposition folly of mandating real-time electronic transmission — by Sunny Ezeh
As Nigeria inches toward the 2027 elections, the predictable circus is underway: opposition politicians, feigning guardianship of democracy, are bellowing against the Senate’s rational position on electronic transmission of election results. They proclaim themselves the sole defenders of “free and fair elections,” yet their arguments collapse under the weight of reality. The demand to make real-time electronic transmission mandatory is less about protecting votes and more about creating a pretext to delegitimize any outcome that does not favor them. This is not leadership—it is manipulation of ignorance and emotion on a national scale.
Let us recall history. Atiku Abubakar, vice-president for eight years, never pressed for compulsory real-time transmission despite wielding unrivaled influence in government. Peter Obi, as a presidential adviser, likewise never institutionalized this “guarantee of fairness.” Oby Ezekwesili observed elections widely condemned as fraudulent but did not champion mandatory electronic transmission either. These leaders knew what today’s vocal opposition ignores: technology fails, networks collapse, digital systems glitch, and human error occurs; even under the most sophisticated setups. They understood the practical realities of elections; the current chorus of outrage is a political performance, not a reform agenda.
The Senate’s measured approach is not incompetence; it is intellectual and legal prudence. Electronic transmission is adopted as a transparency tool, not as the backbone of electoral legitimacy. In Nigeria, as in all major democracies; France, the UK, Germany, India, the US; votes counted on paper remain the legal record, with electronic transmission serving to speed reporting and enhance public confidence. Mandating real-time transmission as the determinant of results is not merely impractical; it is a recipe for engineered disenfranchisement. Powerful incumbents can manipulate networks in opposition strongholds, selectively disrupting uploads and skewing outcomes. This is not a hypothetical; history from Brazil, Venezuela, Bangladesh, and Pakistan demonstrates that so-called “full-proof” systems are always disputed, always vulnerable, and always contested by those with influence.
The opposition’s emotional campaign is transparently self-serving. Their outrage pretends to protect citizens but actually seeks leverage: to claim victimhood if elections go against them, to delegitimize the process, and to manufacture chaos. Nigerians must recognize this: free and fair elections are not determined by the applause of politicians but by the integrity of the process at the polling unit. Mandating real-time electronic transmission as the legal standard will not make elections fairer; it will make them more susceptible to politically motivated sabotage. The Senate’s stance is, therefore, patriotic, rational, and in line with global best practice. Any criticism that ignores these realities is not a call for reform; it is a play for political gain at the expense of the nation.
In 2027, Nigerians must resist being deceived by emotional theatrics masquerading as principle. Democracy thrives not on slogans but on systems designed with prudence, foresight, and protection against manipulation. The Senate’s position is a safeguard, not a surrender. Those who attack it are not defenders of democracy; they are opportunists, exploiting ignorance and fear for political profit.
May reason and reality guide Nigeria’s electorate.
