Vulnerable Sections Of 2026 Electoral Act And 2027 Elections
BY INWALOMHE DONALD
Section 85 of the Electoral Act (EA) 2026 is unconstitutional and most fraudulent because democratic institutions cannot be built with candidates’ forged certificates. Section 63 of the Act, particularly the clause that allows a ballot paper without an official mark to be counted at the discretion of a Returning officer is fraudulent and it will not produce any credible results. With fraudulent sections of 2026 Electoral Act, 2027 Elections will only produce fraudulent results. Fraudulent legal provisions, particularly Sections 63, 85, 137 and 138 will open the door to widespread electoral manipulation, weaken accountability and shift the outcomes of elections from polling units to courtrooms.
It is fraudulent and unconstitutional to use Section 85 of the Electoral Act 2026 to repeal and amend Section 137 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended which states expressly: “A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if – (i) he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.” then the constitution is void. Sections 106(1)(h), 107 (1) (h) and 182(1)(i) of the constitution list certificate forgery as basis for disqualification in different categories. And the constitution supersedes the EA. The constitutional provision which makes certificate forgery a ground for disqualification cannot be repeal with electoral act. Repeating it in an EA is a waste of time, paper and ink. The courts are not so dumb to say because forgery is not mentioned in an EA, With 2026 Electoral Act, there will be pre and post- election violence during 2027 elections. Electoral Act 2026, section 85 says: “A political party shall not impose nomination, qualification or disqualification criteria, measures, or conditions on any aspirant or candidate for any election in its constitution, guidelines, or rules for nomination of candidates for elections, except as prescribed under sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 177 and 187 of the Constitution.”
Trouble is looming around the conduct of 2027 elections; it looks like the Executive arm of government has captured national assembly and it is strangulating the judiciary which cannot bring about sustainable democracy. Sections 63, 85, 137, and 138 of the Electoral Act 2026 are major vulnerabilities that could enable electoral manipulation, weaken accountability, and shift election outcomes from polling units to the courtrooms during 2027 elections. This is a fraudulent electoral act
2026 Electoral Act contains several legal ‘landmines’ that those in opposition political parties were either too busy to detect or were ignorant of while the bill was before members of the National Assembly. Section 63 of the Act, particularly the clause that allows a ballot paper without an official mark to be counted at the discretion of a Returning officer is fraudulent, grave and dangerous ambiguity. It creates room for manipulation and could undermine the credibility of the electoral process. “This is not a minor technical issue – it is a direct threat to electoral integrity. Any system that leaves ballot validation to subjective judgment invites dispute and potential abuse.
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. This framework weakens accountability mechanisms. “Some unscrupulous members of INEC can give the security features of ballot papers to politicians. When INEC goes to the court to say that the document is not its document, the tribunal upheld a forged document.
Section 138, which states: “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.
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 and assistant presiding officers can abandon it. This section implies that violations of INEC guidelines alone may not be sufficient grounds to question election outcomes – a situation which is one of the long-standing “rigging provisions” that had been resisted in the past.
Indeed, Section 77 (2) of the Electoral Act 2026 states that membership registers to be submitted must contain the name, sex, date of birth, address, state, local government, ward, polling unit, national identity number, and photograph of members. Section 77 (5) added: “Only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses, and conventions of the political parties.” This also means that once your name is not in the register submitted to INEC, you cannot be nominated for any position in the general election.
According to section 77(7), a party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time “shall not be eligible to field candidates” in all elections to be conducted by INEC. The game plan became clearer when INEC recently unveiled its revised timetable for the 2027 general election and directed political parties to comply with section 77(2) of the law by submitting their membership registers by April 21. This was later extended to May 10, a clear eight months before the general election.
Section 63 of the Electoral Act 2026, which deals with ballot papers is a dangerous provision. It grants excessive discretion to presiding officers to identify ballot papers. A presiding officer, better known as a PO, is the primary election official responsible for managing a polling station on election day. Section 63 (1) of the law states that “ballot paper which does not bear the official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted has been fraudulently amended. It will expose presiding officers to electoral violence attack on the day of election. This could encourage politicians to print fake ballot papers for elections. Nigerians can see that the ballot paper that would be used for the 2027 election that does not bear the official security features of INEC should be accepted by the presiding officer, “The presiding officer has now been given the discretion to accept a ballot paper notwithstanding the absence of the official mark and to count that ballot paper. What this means is that before this election (2027), politicians who now have access to the security features of INEC ballot will print their ballot papers that have to be accepted. This is dangerous as put in the Electoral Act.
Subsection 2 further stipulates that “where the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished to the Presiding Officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the official mark, count that ballot paper”.
Nigerians have experienced a rising tide of electoral violence and misconduct. Our democracy is supposed to experience a positive evolution in the conduct of election. It is within the context of 2026 Electoral Act to experience a continuous decline in election administration. Quite disheartening that adherence to the laws and judgment has been thrown to the wind. Today, elections are brazenly militarized. Successive governments have been guilty of this, thus have set a bad precedence for others to follow.
Inwalomhe Donald writes via inwalomhe.donald@yahoo.com
