INEC's Steps to Regain Trust in Election Results Ahead of 2027

Election results management is the most debated part of Nigeria's voting process. This is when votes from citizens are turned into official results. Sadly, this is often where things go wrong: results are changed or completely made up. Some officials may act dishonestly, while security agencies can interfere with the counting process to favor certain candidates. This is the time when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) faces its biggest test of honesty and independence.

One chance to boost public trust came with the reform of the Electoral Act in 2026. Though the Act requires electronic transmission of results from polling units to the IREV portal, a rule allows the physical result sheet to override the electronic results. This leaves room for manipulation and goes against the goal of electronic transmission. This is worrying because the physical result sheet is often used to change results. If a result is changed on paper, that altered number is what counts, even when the online image reflects what really happened at the polling unit. No matter the reasons for this rule, it protects the very fraud that electronic transmission was meant to stop.

In its report, Securing the Vote: Electronic Transmission and Collation of Election Results, Yiaga Africa looked at the rules for the 2027 elections. One key finding is that many processes that could build public trust in election results are not clear to the people. The good news is that INEC can fix many of these issues quickly without waiting for another change to the Electoral Act. It can take action now.

INEC should take these seven steps to rebuild trust in election results:

First, INEC must publish a clear results transmission protocol. Nigerians have the right to know how their election results are handled. INEC should provide a detailed, easy-to-understand account of how results from polling units go to the IREV portal. Right now, there is a lack of clarity about how results are processed after they are sent electronically. The public does not know who handles this process, how results are validated, or how long it takes. This lack of transparency creates confusion and distrust.

When people cannot see how results are handled, they start to suspect that something is wrong. During the recent Ekiti election, Yiaga Africa’s Election Results Analysis Dashboard (ERAD) tracked uploads to IReV. The first results appeared at 4:10 pm. By 4:14 pm, 283 results were online. Later, 748 results showed up in just five minutes, between 6:32 pm and 6:37 pm.

There may be good technical reasons for this upload pattern, but that is why INEC should explain it. When things are unclear in election management, it creates a gap filled with doubt and misinformation. INEC should also clarify how the new electronic EC8A process works. Polling officials now enter numbers from the physical result sheet into an electronic version on the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS). Nigerians deserve to know how this electronic record works, where it goes, how it is stored, and what happens if it contradicts the physical EC8A.

Second, publish polling unit accreditation figures on the IREV. INEC should put BVAS accreditation figures for every polling unit on the IREV alongside the results. Before the 2023 general election, INEC promised to publish these figures, but it did not fully deliver. As we approach 2027, this should be key to results management. Accreditation data is crucial because the number of votes should match the number of accredited voters. Publishing accreditation figures next to Form EC8A would allow citizens and observers to check the consistency of the results.

Third, publish the ward and local government collation sheets on the IREV. Forms EC8B and EC8C should also be available on the IREV portal, and INEC should set a specific date for this. Currently, the portal shows only polling unit results, not the collated results at the ward and local government levels. This is where results often change behind the scenes. Citizens need to see how results are handled to build trust. If there are cancellations at the ward level, the public should know why.

Right now, people can see polling unit results but not how those results change in later stages. This creates a big gap in transparency. Collation is not just counting; it is where changes and decisions can affect final results.

Fourth, set up a clear protocol for election record reconciliation. The new results management system means there could be different versions of the same polling unit results. INEC must clarify what happens if there are discrepancies. A formal protocol should be in place to document, investigate, and resolve any differences before collation begins.

Fifth, revise Paragraph 40 of its Regulations and Guidelines. INEC should clear up the confusion in Paragraph 40 before the general election. Two key areas need focus. First, the Regulations should clearly state where the validated polling-unit results go and their purpose. Second, INEC should establish a clear way to record failed communications. “Communication failure” should not be a vague term used whenever there is an issue with electronic transmission. Every incident should be documented properly.

The Regulations should include a standard incident form that captures details like the polling unit involved, the time of the failure, the issue faced, and what was done to fix it.

Sixth, allow independent scrutiny of the technology. Public trust in election technology cannot rely only on assurances from INEC. The upgraded systems for accreditation, transmission, and results management should be assessed by independent experts before the 2027 elections. These systems should also go through stress tests and mock exercises that reflect the real conditions of a general election.

INEC should disclose what upgrades were made, their goals, and how they were tested, to help build trust. A system might be technically sound but still lose public confidence if no one can verify that for themselves.

Seventh, officially publish the Regulations and Guidelines. INEC should formally publish its Regulations and Guidelines as the law requires and give a dedicated results management manual to all election officials. Everyone involved in results management needs to understand the rules for electronic transmission, communication failures, resolving discrepancies, and result cancellations.

Transparency is key to trust

These seven actions share a common goal. None need another amendment to the Electoral Act. They are mostly within INEC’s power to implement. What is needed is a commitment to make the results management process more open to public scrutiny. This may be uncomfortable, but it is essential for trust. Citizens will trust results more when they can see how they are formed. With the 2027 elections coming up, INEC has the responsibility to make this process clear and accountable. Political parties and other groups also have roles to play. Political parties need to take results oversight seriously, understand the rules, and ensure their party agents are well-trained.

Election observation groups should maintain checks on results, including parallel tabulation and monitoring IReV uploads. The media should not focus only on the drama of results but also track how results are managed at every stage and explain the process to the public.