A former Bayelsa State governor and senator representing Bayelsa West, Seriake Dickson, has said Nigeria is not yet ready for electronic voting, describing the insistence on “real-time” transmission of election results as unnecessary.
Dickson made this known in an interview with ARISE News on Tuesday, amid controversy over amendments to the Electoral Act.
“What is the meaning of real time? We are not voting electronically in Nigeria. We are not at the point where you go and press a button and your vote is instantly added to a portal,” he said.
He described the term as “superfluous,” arguing that it does not, on its own, guarantee transparency.
“The word ‘real time’ in this context is actually superfluous.
- Okun Alfa: Caught Between a Raging Ocean and Lagos’s Urban Ambition
- Governor orders urgent repairs after windstorm hits NYSC camp
- Esepo wins title but loses N2m knockout bet to Sojar Boy
- FG to ban unrated textbooks in schools from September
- Journalists shut out of suspected coup plotters’ court proceedings
“It doesn’t, on its own, give you a transparent election. It shouldn’t have been there in the first place. It’s never too late to correct something.”
His comments followed the Senate’s emergency plenary, which revisited Clause 60(3) of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill after public backlash.
The upper chamber approved the transmission of results to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Result Viewing Portal (IREV), while retaining manual collation as a backup in cases of network failure.
However, lawmakers rejected the inclusion of compulsory real-time upload of results.
Critics have warned that the absence of an explicit real-time requirement leaves room for manipulation. Dickson disagreed.
“I don’t count the proceedings of today and the outcome as a loss for democracy,” he said.
He clarified that he was speaking in his personal capacity.
“I’m not here as spokesman of the Senate. I’m here to give my views as someone who has been deeply involved in all these processes as a ranking member of this committee and as someone who participated in the proceedings of today.”
Dickson said deliberations on electronic transmission had lasted nearly two years and involved consultations with INEC.
“This has been going on for about two years or so — different workshops, conferences at the Senate Committee, joint committees and also interactions with INEC,” he said.
The senator disclosed that he was absent when the Senate earlier adopted the controversial position because he was bereaved.
“I was not there when the Senate took that decision earlier, about a week ago, as I was bereaved.
“I lost a close brother, the sitting deputy governor of my state. Today was the very first day I went to sit in the Senate because of the importance of this matter,” he said.
Tracing resistance to electronic transmission to long-standing political divisions, he said: “This issue of electronic transmission is always problematic.
“Even in the 9th Senate, when we tried to introduce electronic transfer, there was stiff opposition. Somehow, the party in power has always been very resistant to these notions.”
He said the Senate and House committees had initially reached consensus before the matter was altered on the Senate floor.
“There was unanimity of opinion. The same report was presented by the House of Reps committee, and they passed it without controversy. That was what we all agreed,” he said.
He described the earlier reversal as “unfortunate,” noting that INEC had given assurances on its capacity.
“What happened in the Senate last week was unfortunate, especially when INEC had already assured us that it could implement electronic transmission,” he said.
Dickson said he confronted the leadership upon returning and was assured of a compromise.
“When I went in for the sitting, I confronted the leadership. They gave me their word that they were going to find a middle course,” he said.
He maintained that the primary evidence of election victory remains the polling unit result form.
“The primary evidence of who won an election is the EC8A. Once the votes are counted, agents sign, and copies are issued, INEC compels presiding officers to transmit the result to IREV. That is good enough for us,” he said.
Although he expressed reservations about allowing manual collation in cases of network failure, he acknowledged the need for compromise.
“I don’t agree with the provision that has been included, but parliament works on the basis of majority,” he said.
He insisted that electronic transmission remains mandatory under the amended clause.
“Every presiding officer shall transmit the result electronically. That is mandatory. That is what we passed today,” he said.
On harmonising the Senate and House versions, he said he would align with the House position.
“If I were a member of the conference committee, I would adopt the House version because it reflects what we all agreed in the joint committee,” he said.
Dickson also criticised the proposal to compel all parties to adopt direct primaries.
“Direct voting is a concept introduced by the APC. They have no right to enforce it on every other party, particularly the smaller parties.”
On accountability, he said INEC remains responsible, even without the amendment.
“Even now, without this amendment, INEC guidelines already compel electronic transmission to IREV,” he said, adding that the Supreme Court had affirmed that the EC8A form remains the primary evidence of election results.
“The IREV was never intended to be the primary evidence.”
Concluding, Dickson said electoral reform must advance gradually.
“You make gains incrementally. It’s not always your way or the highway. We have made electronic transfer mandatory, and that is progress.”
