Election day in Nigeria arrives with promise. The streets hum with optimism, the queues stretch for miles, and citizens cast ballots believing in change. By nightfall, however, hope has been measured, delayed, and explained away. What began as a declaration of equality ends as a story of compromise, calculation, and the distance between a vote and power.
The professor stands behind the mechanic. The widow stands behind the party loyalist. The graduate who has not found work in three years stands behind the man who promised change four years ago. For a few hours, we behave like a republic.
Then results start travelling.
And in Nigeria, the most dangerous journey is not from Lagos to Abuja. It is from the polling unit to the final announcement.
The Electoral Amendment Act was sold as protection: electronic transmission, clearer rules, stronger timelines. Numbers would move digitally, safely, without being “helped” along the way. Party primaries would be more democratic. Confusion was ending.
Yet Nigerians have learned that confusion is rarely accidental. It is useful. Technology cannot discipline a political culture that rewards manipulation. Results may move digitally, in real time, from polling units to INEC, but if the system stalls at strategic moments, the damage is done before anyone finishes explaining what went wrong. Memory in Nigeria is heavy, and it never forgets.
Much of the debate centers on electronic transmission. Should results be legally binding the moment they leave polling units, or remain subject to INEC’s discretion? After delayed uploads in 2023, citizens can distinguish transparency in print from transparency in practice. Early voting for security personnel and diaspora participation adds another layer. Supporters see expansion of enfranchisement; critics fear abuse.
Not all reforms can happen through statute. Diaspora voting and constitutional timelines for dispute resolution require full constitutional amendments, two-thirds approval in the National Assembly and state assemblies. Even the most ambitious Electoral Act is constrained by the Constitution.
Across Africa, lessons are visible. Ghana resolves presidential election disputes within strict timelines. Kenya enforces rapid adjudication through its Supreme Court. Nigeria’s slower post-election litigation prolongs uncertainty and deepens skepticism.
The Act also tightened rules around party primaries. Good. Necessary. But Nigerians know the real choices are often made behind closed doors. Delegates are persuaded. Lists are adjusted. Outcomes negotiated. By the time the public sees the ballot, heavy decisions have already been filtered. Are we protecting the vote itself, or the illusion of participation?
Young Nigerians hoped the amendment would mark a turning point. A generation that documents everything assumed elections would mirror that immediacy. But digital tools do not create moral will. A server cannot replace courage. A portal cannot enforce accountability. Reform fails not because laws are badly written but because enforcement is selective and Nigeria specializes in selective enforcement.
Officials who compromise elections retire quietly. Party leaders who bend rules face no penalty. Institutions hesitate when powerful names are involved. Law becomes what many Nigerian laws already are: impressive in print, fragile in practice.
Yet the Electoral Amendment Act is not empty. In the hands of independent institutions, it could transform elections. But laws do not defend themselves. They depend on people willing to withstand pressure, resist influence, and choose legitimacy over loyalty. That choice is where our democracy usually fractures.
The next election will not test the grammar of the Act. It will test the spine of the institutions implementing it. Will results move across the country without being delayed, diluted, or quietly redesigned? Will the will expressed at the polling unit survive the journey upward?
Two provisions remain most controversial. First, the binding nature of electronic results, should a vote transmitted digitally be final, or subject to discretion? Second, early voting for security personnel and diaspora participation introduces both fairness and logistical questions. Both are necessary, yet both ignite debate.
Constitutional nuance matters. Some reforms can happen through legislation, like electronic transmission and party primary rules. Others, like diaspora voting and defined timelines for dispute resolution, require constitutional amendments. These mechanisms are designed to balance reform with stability.
For citizens, the struggle is not casting votes, it is defending them. Until institutions enforce accountability and political actors fear consequences, every amendment will be greeted with applause in the beginning and explanations in the end.
Nigeria has the intelligence and capacity to create a perfect electoral framework. What it lacks is fear of consequences. Until powerful actors genuinely risk losing something for undermining elections, procedural amendments will continue to sound revolutionary while functioning ordinarily.
The Electoral Amendment Act could transform elections. It could make real-time transparency a reality. It could make party primaries fair. It could reduce post-election litigation. It could restore trust. But laws alone do not reform culture. They rely on people. People with spines, not names. People willing to let legitimacy outweigh loyalty.
The test is coming. When results travel from polling units, when servers upload numbers instantly, when citizens watch their votes climb digital mountains, will Nigeria show that the vote is sacred, or merely procedural? That is the question the next election will answer.
Casting a vote in Nigeria is simple. Protecting it is the real struggle. The test is coming. When results travel from polling units, when servers upload numbers instantly, when citizens watch their votes climb digital mountains, will Nigeria show that the vote is sacred, or merely procedural? That is the question the next election will answer.
Casting a vote in Nigeria is simple. Protecting it is the real struggle. The Electoral Amendment Act is not the end of the journey; it is only as strong as the institutions and people who choose to defend it. Until that choice is made consistently, the distance between a vote and power will remain wide.
The post Electoral Amendment Act: Distance between a vote and power, by Stephanie Shaakaa appeared first on Vanguard News.
