I have witnessed many elections since 1979 and I can say without any equivocation that the 2023 election was the best, the most free and fair, the most transparent.
Those who are pillorying the election and INEC, the electoral umpire are simply saying so because the outcome of the election, especially the presidential election did not match their expectation.
May God forgive them, especially the men in cassocks, who in their hallucination, had prophesied victory for their favourite candidate, claiming it was a message from God.
It must be clear to Nigerians that those clerics were not in any conclave with the Almighty God. Their prediction was their personal desires, which went unfulfilled by God.
God surely has other plans for our country and instead chose a man, who has the best leadership pedigree and espouses the best vision to pilot our affairs from 29 May.
Man indeed proposes, God disposes. Our clergymen, not satisfied with the divine and INEC verdict have been all out disparaging the election. The latest of them was Cardinal John Onaiyekan of the Catholic Church.
News reports said the Octogenarian claimed that the election was rigged. He accused some unidentified people of masterminding the rigging and claimed that God knows those riggers.
To Onaiyekan, the alleged machination of ‘those riggers’ made impossible the manifestation of the ‘people’s will’ in the outcome announced by INEC. This lie, nay a malicious propaganda, has been told repeatedly by the opposition parties and their supporters since 1 March when Asiwaju Bola Tinubu was declared as President-elect.
The lie has been sold abroad to people who do not have a first-hand information on how INEC conducted the poll.
The lie is simply vicious. It must stop. It is a lie for which the purveyors, no matter their status, ought to earn the wrath of God on earth and in heaven. It is not true.
Without holding brief for INEC, which has filed its defence at the Tribunal, which begins sitting on 8 May, I repeat again that the 2023 election was the best since the return to democracy in 1999. It was miles ahead of the heavily compromised 2007 election conducted by President Olusegun Obasanjo, wherein the beneficiary of the electoral heist, Umaru Yar’Adua apologised for the embarrassment.
Yar’Adua atoned for Obasanjo’s sin by setting up the Justice Uwais Commission to sanitise our election process.
Since then, our elections have gotten better, election cycle after election cycle.
The introduction of BVAS made a significant difference and made the 2023 election, the most technologically driven poll ever conducted in our country. And the best. BVAS made it impossible for parties to record outlandish numbers in their strongholds. It ensured that only the accredited voters voted. INEC deserves praise not ridicule.
All the critics of INEC, on account of the non-transmission of the results recorded at the 176,000 polling units are purely doing so for mischief.
The criticism is most misplaced as the so-called result transmission was additional to what happened at the polling unit. It is superfluous.
In the presidential and National Assembly elections, all polling units tallied votes cast and each party polling agent was given a copy of Form EC8. Collation of polling unit results was done at the ward level and from there to the council level and then the state level. Political parties usually know how they fared in the election by the time votes are tallied at ward or council level.
Parties do not need to wait for INEC upload of polling unit results on its portal to know the entire result of the election. They do not also need to wait for the results announced at the Abuja Collation Centre. In 2015, President Goodluck Jonathan conceded to President Muhammad Buhari before INEC’s announcement, because he and his agents had the figures from all the states. He conceded because he knew the election was already lost to Buhari.
In a development that is extremely strange to our politics, the Labour Party and the PDP initially sponsored calls for an interim government. When that did not get traction, they mounted vicious attacks on INEC for not uploading the results on time, using this lapse to vilify an election that was the best in our country. It’s like condemning your bank for not printing a receipt for a credit payment, when the money is already sitting pretty in your account and you have received the alert.
The Labour Party and the PDP and their surrogates, some of them lawyers, clerics and some ethnic groups have also mounted desperate campaign for the postponement of the inauguration of the President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu on 29 May. Some other groups, including the leading labour and partisan unions, the NLC and TUC, in league with some equally partisan civil society organisations are blackmailing the judges that will handle the petitions against Tinubu’e election.
We have never had such post-poll desperation, except this time that we have a Peter Obi on the ballot and an Atiku that is cocksure he has lost his last chance to gun for the nation’s No. 1 seat. Since 1999, every election held has always been disputed by losers.
The winners are allowed to be sworn in, while litigation goes on. This was the case in all elections. This is also the trend in the states. This has been the convention. It was the convention when Labour Party Vice presidential candidate, Datti Baba-Ahmed became a senator, representing Kaduna North in 2011 under the platform of Congress for Progressive Change. His challenger went to court. Baba-Ahmed’s victory was upturned, after some months, when he had been sworn in as senator.
We cannot change the convention now because some people believe that the men who came second and third in the poll, are pursuing cases in court. They should exercise patience for the judiciary to decide whether they have any strong case to invalidate Tinubu’s victory. The judiciary has always supported litigants when they have ‘substantial’ proof that they were rigged out of an election. As the tribunal begins sitting today, let Labour and its senior partner, the PDP stop further blackmail of the judiciary.
In a piece, titled ‘ End the Paywall on Leadership: Let Competence, Not Cash, Decide Our Candidates,’ Dr. Chiogo Constance Ikokwu (Ugonecheora), an aspirant for Idemili North and South Federal Constituency for House of Representatives on African Democratic Congress (ADC) platform, called on political parties across Nigeria, to either scrap or reduce the high cost of nomination forms.
This she said, will open the door to real leadership, and help to expand access to women and people with disabilities (PWDs).
Emphasising that Nigeria’s political system cannot thrive behind a price tag, Dr Ikokwu observed that the high cost of party nomination forms has turned political participation into an exclusive club for the wealthy, shutting out capable women, young people, and PWDs before they even begin.
She argues that if leadership is truly about service, then access to contest must not be determined by bank balance, but by vision, integrity, and the courage to lead.
She said:
” Political parties, especially the African Democratic Congress (ADC) on whose platform I’m running, must take deliberate steps to eliminate or drastically reduce the cost of nomination forms. I also expect that women and PWDs are allowed to pay discounted fees, if indeed they must pay.
If we are serious about deepening democracy, then access to contest should not be reserved for the wealthy or those backed by powerful financiers,” she stated.
She continued; “Money politics has done deep damage to the quality of our representation, and the reasons are clear. It sidelines visionary candidates who have ideas, integrity, and a genuine desire to serve, but lack the financial muscle to compete.
By removing these financial, and other barriers, parties will not only expand participation but also elevate the standard of leadership.
If we are serious about deepening democracy, then access to contest should not be reserved for the wealthy or those backed by powerful financiers.
Nigeria deserves leaders chosen for their competence and character, not the size of their wallets.”
Dr. Ikokwu argued that Nigeria cannot keep saying it wants inclusive leadership while maintaining barriers that shut out capable citizens.
As a journalist turned politician, she said that she has seen firsthand how the exorbitant cost of party nomination forms discourages not just women, but also young people from even stepping forward.
These fees are not a measure of competence or commitment, they are simply a financial gatekeeping tool that narrows our democratic space, she declared. “
Every year on March 8, the world pauses to celebrate International Women’s Day (IWD), a global moment to reflect on women’s achievements and the ongoing fight for equality.
Meanwhile, beyond the celebrations, the real conversation centers on something deeper: women’s rights.
Tribune Online, highlights 50 key rights of the female gender, drawn from those principles and global equality frameworks, to mark International Women’s Day and remind society that equality is not a privilege but a right.
The Right to Respect
Every woman deserves respect in all aspects of her life, including society, at home, and in the workplace.
The Right to Be Free from Body Shaming
No woman should be judged or mocked because of her appearance.
The Right to Protection from Sexual Abuse
Sexual violence against women is a violation of basic human rights.
The Right to Protection from Physical Abuse
Women have the right to live without domestic or physical violence.
The Right to Emotional Safety
Psychological and emotional abuse are forms of violence that must be rejected.
The Right to Education
No girl or woman should be denied access to education.
The Right to Equal Treatment
Women should be treated equally to men in all areas of life.
The Right to Equal Pay
Women must receive the same pay as men for the same work.
Globally, the gender pay gap persists, where women are paid roughly 22% less than men on average, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
The Right to Freedom from Discrimination
Gender should never determine opportunities.
The Right to Political Participation
Women should have the opportunity to run for public office.
The Right to Own Property
Women should have the right to own land and assets.
The Right to Healthcare
Access to quality healthcare is a fundamental right.
The Right to Bodily Autonomy
A woman’s body belongs to her, no one else.
The Right to Vote
Women must participate freely in democratic processes.
The Right to Make Personal Decisions
Women should have autonomy over life choices.
The Right to Choose Marriage
No woman should be forced into marriage.
The Right to Decide Family Size
Women should determine the number of children they want.
The Right to Dress Freely
Women should not be shamed for their clothing choices.
The Right to Reproductive Freedom
Women must not be forced into abortion or sterilization.
The Right to Protest
Women have the right to peacefully advocate for their rights.
Women have the right to peacefully advocate for their rights.
The Right to Speak Out
Every woman should be able to express her views openly.
The Right to Privacy
Recording or sharing images of women without consent is unacceptable.
The Right to Protection from Drugging or Assault
Women deserve safety in social spaces.
The Right to Safety in Public and Private Spaces
Women must feel secure everywhere they go.
The Right to Be Seen Beyond Sexual Objectification
Women are individuals with talents, ambitions, and identities.
The Right to Freedom of Movement
Women should travel freely without restrictions.
The Right to Hold a Passport
Travel rights must not be denied based on gender.
The Right to Independence
Women should be encouraged to build financial independence.
The Right to Dignity After Divorce
Divorced women should not face stigma.
The Right to Respect Regardless of Marital Status
Being unmarried should never invite insult.
The Right to Protection from Rape
Sexual violence must never be tolerated
Sexual violence must never be tolerated.
The Right to Freedom from Harmful Cultural Practices
Practices like forced virginity tests must be abolished.
The Right to Freedom from Widowhood Abuse
Widows should not face degrading rituals.
The Right to Freedom from Gender Stereotypes
Women should not be confined to traditional roles.
The Right to Career Ambition
An ambitious woman should be celebrated, not criticized.
The Right to Equal Leadership Opportunities
Women should participate in leadership and decision-making.
The Right to Equal Opportunity in Employment
Career advancement should be based on merit.
The Right to Freedom from Disability Discrimination
Women with disabilities deserve equal respect.
The Right to Gender Equality Policies
Governments must reform laws that discriminate against women.
Right to Empowerment
Education, economic inclusion, and health access empower women globally.
Right to Celebration
Women’s contributions make the world better and deserve recognition.
IN the evolving story of Nigeria’s democratic consolidation, few issues have provoked as much intensity as electoral reform.
The signing into law of the Electoral Act (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill 2026 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu marked another chapter in this journey, drawing applause, skepticism, and fierce debate in equal measure.
At the centre of this moment stands Godswill Akpabio, President of the Senate, who has consistently articulated a position that blends institutional caution with reformist intent.
His assertion that the National Assembly met “the aspirations of Nigerians, not a few people who make noise” reflects not merely rhetorical flourish, but a deeper philosophy of lawmaking anchored in constitutionalism, legislative procedure, and national peculiarities.
To understand Akpabio’s positioning, one must situate the reform within Nigeria’s broader democratic trajectory. Since the country’s return to civilian rule in 1999, electoral reforms have often oscillated between technological optimism and structural reality.
The 2026 re-enactment does not discard innovation; rather, it recalibrates it.
In defending the new Act, Akpabio emphasised that the National Assembly undertook a “painstaking” and “thorough” process, mindful of the country’s infrastructural limitations, judicial precedents, and the ultimate objective of preventing disenfranchisement.
A key flashpoint in the debate was the question of electronic transmission of results. For many reform advocates, real-time electronic transmission became symbolic of transparency.
Yet Akpabio’s argument was not against technology; it was against rigidity detached from capacity.
He consistently maintained that technology must serve democracy, not endanger it.
In a country where broadband penetration is uneven, where insecurity disrupts network infrastructure across multiple states, and where power supply remains inconsistent, embedding inflexible “real-time” mandates into statute could, in his view, expose elections to avoidable litigations and invalidation.
This perspective aligns with the constitutional role of the legislature.
The Senate does not conduct elections; it makes laws.
The responsibility for operational modalities rests with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which applies the law within its administrative and technical capacity.
By leaving room for INEC to determine timing and modalities of transmission, the Act reflects a respect for institutional boundaries.
Whether history ultimately vindicates every provision of the 2026 Act will depend on future elections. But as of its enactment, the legislative record reflects a deliberate attempt to harmonize innovation with stability.
Akpabio’s defense of this approach underscores his insistence that Parliament legislate for posterity, not for transient political advantage.
At the State House signing ceremony, President Tinubu reinforced this institutional clarity.
He observed that Nigeria’s elections remain “essentially manual.”
Ballots are cast manually, counted manually, and declared by human beings.
While electronic viewing enhances transparency, the core process remains human-centered.
Tinubu’s caution about broadband readiness and cyber vulnerabilities echoes Akpabio’s reasoning.
Together, their statements project a governance philosophy that privileges clarity and feasibility over performative reform.
Perhaps the most celebrated innovation in the new Act is the formal legal recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) result viewer, commonly referred to as IReV. This recognition represents a significant milestone.
For the first time since independence in 1960, electronic viewing of polling unit results is explicitly grounded in statutory authority.
Under the amended framework, results transmitted electronically—even if delayed due to connectivity issues—must ultimately reflect on the IReV portal once network is restored. This creates a verifiable digital trail that citizens, observers, and parties can scrutinize and interrogate.
Akpabio described this as a landmark safeguard against a historic problem: tampering between polling units and collation centres.
By ensuring that Form EC8A—the primary polling unit result form signed by presiding officers and party agents—feeds into a publicly accessible portal, the law strengthens accountability without discarding manual collation procedures validated by courts.
The Supreme Court’s pronouncements in post-2023 election litigation had clarified that IReV, as previously configured, was not the definitive legal record of results.
Rather than ignore this judicial interpretation, the legislature responded by integrating electronic viewing into statutory text while preserving the evidentiary primacy of signed result forms.
This harmonization of law and jurisprudence illustrates legislative maturity.Critics, including the opposition parties, alleged that the Act’s signing reflected partisan fear.
Civil society voices such as Yiaga Africa described the reform as incremental where transformation was needed. Yet even among critics, a pragmatic thread emerged.
The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre and the Transition Monitoring Group urged acceptance of the law while focusing attention on demanding credible conduct from INEC.
This convergence suggests that while disagreements persist about optimal reform design, there is recognition that institutional strengthening is iterative.
Akpabio’s stance during earlier debates further illuminates his approach.
On February 8, at a public presentation of Senator Effiong Bob’s book in Abuja, he cautioned against hasty conclusions about an amendment process still underway.
His insistence that commentators wait until Votes and Proceedings were finalized before passing judgment reflects a proceduralist ethos. Legislative drafting is iterative.
Clauses are debated, amended, harmonised between chambers, and only then crystallised into final text.
By defending this process against what he termed premature media trials, Akpabio positioned himself as a guardian of institutional integrity.His critique of “retreat politics” is equally telling.
Consultative retreats, he argued, are valuable but not binding.
Final authority rests on the Senate floor, where clauses are debated and voted upon. This distinction reinforces parliamentary sovereignty within Nigeria’s constitutional framework.
It also shows a deeper democratic principle: advocacy informs lawmaking, but elected representatives deliberate and decide.
Another noteworthy provision in the amended Act concerns internal party democracy.
By empowering party members to vote directly for candidates during primaries, the law dilutes the dominance of small delegate blocs.
In theory, this broadens participation, reduces transactional politics, and enhances legitimacy.
Akpabio’s highlighting of this reform signals an understanding that electoral integrity begins within parties, not merely at polling units.
The Act also addresses scenarios where leading candidates are disqualified by courts. Mandating fresh elections in such circumstances, it prevents outcomes where significantly lower-polling candidates assume office by default.
This provision closes a loophole that had generated controversy in past cycles. In doing so, the legislature strengthens the moral authority of electoral outcomes.
The reduction of statutory notice for elections from 360 days to 300 days, may appear technical but carries practical implications.
It allows scheduling flexibility, including the possibility of avoiding sensitive religious periods such as Ramadan and Lent.
This demonstrates legislative sensitivity to socio-cultural realities—a recurring theme in Akpabio’s rhetoric about Nigeria’s peculiarities.
Opposition criticisms deserve engagement.
The PDP characterized the signing as hurried and partisan.
Yet the legislative timeline reflects deliberation across chambers, conference committee harmonisation, and eventual executive assent.
Moreover, the principle of legislative-executive cooperation is intrinsic to constitutional governance. The swift assent by President Tinubu can be interpreted not as haste but as responsiveness to parliamentary consensus.
Support from figures like Nyesom Wike reinforces the perception that the reform commands cross-sectional backing within the governing architecture.
Wike’s description of democracy as a “work-in-progress” aligns with Akpabio’s incrementalist philosophy. Reform, in this view, is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
Central to Akpabio’s defense is the rejection of absolutism.
Mandating real-time electronic transmission in a context of infrastructural fragility could render entire states’ results vulnerable to nullification due to network outages.
He invoked comparative examples, including electoral disputes in advanced democracies, to illustrate that even technologically sophisticated systems encounter anomalies.
The lesson he draws is humility: laws must anticipate worst-case scenarios.
This caution is not synonymous with conservatism. By embedding IReV recognition in statute, the Act advances transparency beyond previous frameworks.
It creates a hybrid model—manual voting and collation complemented by electronic visibility. Such hybridity may represent a uniquely Nigerian pathway, blending global best practices with domestic constraints.
Akpabio’s rhetorical framing—distinguishing “noise” from lawmaking—has attracted attention.
While critics may interpret it as dismissive, it also speaks to a tension in contemporary democracies: the amplification of vocal minorities through media ecosystems. Legislative legitimacy, however, derives from electoral mandate and constitutional procedure.
By emphasizing the “generality of Nigerians,” Akpabio situates himself within a majoritarian democratic theory tempered by rule of law.The question of disenfranchisement further illuminates his position.
If technological failure in insecure or rural areas invalidated results, marginalized communities could bear disproportionate impact.
By allowing delayed electronic uploads once connectivity is restored, the Act seeks to reconcile inclusivity with transparency.
This compromise reflects distributive sensitivity.
In evaluating Akpabio’s stewardship, one must also consider his broader legislative philosophy.
He repeatedly asserts that laws must outlast individuals. This intergenerational perspective discourages tailoring statutes to immediate partisan contests.
Whether one agrees with every clause, the emphasis on durability highlights a statesmanlike orientation.The reactions from civil society, though critical, implicitly acknowledge the dynamic nature of reform.
Calls to continue advocating improvements indicate that the 2026 Act is part of an ongoing process. Akpabio himself has stated that doors remain open. This openness suggests confidence rather than defensiveness.
Ultimately, the measure of electoral reform lies not only in statutory text but in implementation.
INEC’s capacity, political party behaviour, judicial adjudication, and citizen vigilance will shape outcomes. Yet legislation provides the framework within which these actors operate.
By integrating electronic viewing, clarifying collation hierarchies, strengthening internal party democracy, and closing disqualification loopholes, the National Assembly has recalibrated that framework.
In positioning Akpabio in a favourable light, it is important to avoid hagiography. Democratic leadership entails contestation.
However, his consistent themes—respect for process, infrastructural realism, institutional boundaries, and posterity—form a coherent narrative. Rather than capitulate to populist maximalism or resist reform altogether, he charted a middle course.
Nigeria’s democracy, like many across the globe, navigates between aspiration and capacity.
Technological for determinism offers seductive simplicity; constitutional prudence demands complexity.
In the crucible of electoral reform, Akpabio has presented himself as a custodian of that prudence.
Whether history ultimately vindicates every provision of the 2026 Act will depend on future elections. But as of its enactment, the legislative record reflects a deliberate attempt to harmonise innovation with stability.
The broader democratic project requires precisely this balance.
Transparency without feasibility breeds litigation. Feasibility without transparency breeds distrust.
By embedding electronic visibility within a manual backbone, the Act seeks equilibrium. In championing this architecture, Akpabio aligns himself with a vision of reform that is incremental yet substantive, cautious yet forward-moving.
As Nigeria approaches future electoral cycles, the real test will be whether citizens experience greater confidence, fewer disputes, and clearer outcomes.
Should that occur, the painstaking deliberations defended by the Senate President may be remembered not as noise, but as necessary groundwork.
In that sense, Akpabio’s insistence that lawmaking differ from clamor may prove less a rebuke than a reminder: democracy flourishes not only through passion, but through patient construction of rules capable of enduring the storms of politics.
Nigeria’s Electoral Future shall have Senator Godswill Akpabio positively mentioned in its repository.
• Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh is the Special Adviser on Media/Publicity and official Spokesperson to the President of the Senate.
Business2 days ago
Business2 days ago
Business2 days ago
News2 days ago
Opinions2 days ago
Sports2 days ago