Senator Seriake Dickson, a member of the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters, has insisted that despite controversy surrounding the removal of the words “real time” from the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, the Senate’s decision still guarantees mandatory electronic transmission of election results and does not undermine electoral transparency.
Speaking in an interview with ARISE News on Tuesday, Dickson said the Senate’s latest action should not be seen as a setback for democracy, stressing that the core objective of safeguarding the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IREV) had been achieved.
“I don’t count the proceedings of today and the outcome as a loss for democracy,” he said.
The Senate had revisited Clause 60(3) of the bill following public outrage, restoring the provision for electronic transmission of results from polling units to INEC’s IREV portal but retaining a proviso allowing manual collation in cases of network failure. Critics argue that the absence of an explicit real-time transmission requirement leaves room for manipulation.
Dickson, however, clarified that he was speaking in his personal capacity as a legislator deeply involved in the process.
“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.”
He explained that deliberations on electronic transmission had spanned nearly two years, involving consultations, workshops and engagements 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.”
Dickson said he was absent when the Senate initially took the controversial decision due to bereavement.
“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 traced resistance to electronic transmission to long-standing political divisions.
“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.”
According to him, the Senate Committee and the House of Representatives had reached unanimous agreement on protecting IREV 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.”
Dickson described the Senate’s earlier reversal as “unfortunate”.
“What happened in the Senate last week was unfortunate, especially when INEC had already assured us that it could implement electronic transmission.”
He said he personally confronted Senate leadership upon his return.
“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.”
On the debate around real-time transmission, Dickson argued that the term was being misunderstood and overemphasised.
“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 described the term as unnecessary in the current electoral framework.
“The word ‘real time’ in this context is actually superfluous. It doesn’t on its own give you a transparent election.”
He added:
“It shouldn’t have been there in the first place. It’s never too late to correct something.”
Dickson stressed that the essence of transparency lies in protecting polling unit results before collation.
“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 acknowledged reservations about the proviso on network failure but said political realities required compromise.
“I don’t agree with the proviso that has been included, but parliament works on the basis of majority. We don’t have the numbers in the opposition to insist on the original.”
He maintained that the law still mandates electronic transmission.
“The general rule is that every presiding officer shall transmit the result electronically. That is mandatory. That is what we passed today.”
Dickson said if he were part of the conference committee tasked with harmonising the Senate and House versions, he would support 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 also raised concern about other aspects of the bill, particularly the proposal to compel all political 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 in future elections, Dickson said responsibility would rest squarely with INEC.
“Ultimately, the duty of INEC is to issue its own guidelines and regulations. Even now, without this amendment, INEC guidelines already compel electronic transmission to IREV.”
He defended the Supreme Court’s position following the 2023 elections.
“The Supreme Court stated the law correctly by saying the primary source of proving an election is the EC8A. The IREV was never intended to be the primary evidence.”
Dickson concluded that electoral reform must be incremental.
“You make gains incrementally. It’s not always your way or the highway. We have made electronic transfer mandatory, and that is progress.”
Boluwatife Enome
Follow us on:
