“Former INEC REC Unveils 2026 Electoral Act Loopholes That Might Shake Up the 2027 Elections”

A former Resident Electoral Commissioner, REC, of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Mike Igini, has expressed new worries regarding what he termed three “hazardous provisions” in the 2026 Electoral Act, cautioning that they could jeopardize the integrity of upcoming elections, including those in 2027.

During an appearance on Arise TV’s The Morning Show on Wednesday, Igini mentioned that his apprehensions arose after a comprehensive examination of the new legislation, despite his prior withdrawal from electoral discussions due to disillusionment with the situation.

He pointed out that in addition to his previous concerns regarding Section 60(3), he uncovered further stipulations that he believes present considerable dangers to electoral authenticity.

Igini highlighted Section 63 of the Act, asserting that it permits presiding officers to receive ballot papers lacking INEC’s official marks or security features, as long as they are “convinced” of their legitimacy. He contended that this introduces subjective judgment that could be misused.

He claimed that the usage of the term “convinced” brings back a contentious clause that was part of the 2010 Electoral Act, which was subsequently removed after prolonged scrutiny.

Igini cautioned that such discretion might facilitate the utilization of unauthorized ballot papers during voting.

The former REC also voiced concerns about Section 138, which addresses the basis for lodging election petitions. Igini indicated that the provision implies actions or inactions contrary to INEC’s directives—but not explicit violations of the Electoral Act—cannot serve as grounds to contest election outcomes.

He argued that this effectively protects electoral officials who fail to adhere to INEC protocols, noting that such directives are generally included in the commission’s regulations.

Moreover, Igini criticized Section 137, which he stated eliminates the requirement to include electoral officers—like presiding or returning officers—as respondents in election petitions involving claims of misconduct.

He articulated concern that this provision may complicate efforts to hold individual officials accountable for alleged discrepancies during elections.

He remarked: “You know I mentioned that I have not been invested in numerous matters because I’m extremely disheartened, but I resolved to review the Electoral Act.

“I discovered that while our last discussion revolved around Section 60, sub-section 3, which included a caveat that would undermine the 2027 official elections.

“I have now identified three even more perilous provisions, and I believe Nigerians should be made aware of them.

“First, let’s examine Section 63. Now, Section 63, which I just revealed, they have reintroduced something very detrimental. You can see there that ballot papers designated for the 2027 election that lack official marks and security visuals from INEC should be acknowledged by the presiding officer.

“The Presiding Officer has been granted the liberty to accept ballots even in the absence of the official mark, and to count those ballots.

“What this implies is that prior to this election, those politicians who gain access to INEC’s security features will produce their own ballot papers. They will print their own ballots to be accepted. This is alarming and has been included in the Electoral Act.

“Similarly, let’s consider Section 138, which has been one of the rigging provisions we’ve vehemently called to be eliminated. In fact, you recall that in 2019, during this current Republic under Buhari, was the only instance where no Electoral Act was passed. When we proposed that this clause should be expunged, it was ultimately rejected.

“It states that an act or omission contrary to the directives of the commission, or of an appointed officer designated for the election, but which does not contravene the provisions of this Act, shall not, on its own, serve as a basis for contesting the election.

“Allow me to make a few observations here. You see, when you aim to mislead people, you cloak it in language and resurrect that section again. They almost refrained from referencing INEC regulations and guidelines, since the instructions and directives of INEC are found within its regulations.

“They assert that a presiding officer, a coalition officer, or a returning officer can disregard INEC directives or regulations. Thus, they have provided protection there.

“Now let’s address the last section. It will be crucial for Nigerians to understand that Section 137
now states that all categories of individuals, which I previously referred to as a pyramid. All categories we have identified, Presiding Officers and Returning officers. It specifies that when a petition is filed, regarding the conduct of an Electoral Officer, a presiding officer, or a returning officer, it shall not be necessary to join such an officer. This means that those who have failed to adhere to INEC’s instructions and guidelines will not be required to appear in court.

“You are now asserting that the individuals who manipulate elections, presiding officers, who actually crafted the documents, are not required to be brought to the tribunal simply because the INEC has been included as a respondent.”