A former Bayelsa State governor and lawmaker representing Bayelsa West, Senator Seriake Dickson, Wednesday poured cold water on the ongoing debate on real-time transmission of election results.
Dickson said the insistence on “real-time” transmission of election results was unnecessary.
Speaking in an interview with ARISE News, Dickson said the concept of real-time transmission is being widely misunderstood.
He said, “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 “superfluous,” adding that it does not in itself guarantee transparency.
“The word ‘real time’ in this context is actually superfluous. It doesn’t, on its own, give you a transparent election. It shouldn’t have been there in the first place. It’s never too late to correct something.”
He further added that the Senate’s latest action on the Electoral Act Amendment Bill should not be seen as a setback for democracy.
“I don’t count the proceedings of today and the outcome as a loss for democracy,” he said.
His comments come in the wake of the Senate’s emergency plenary, which revisited Clause 60(3) of the bill following public outrage. The upper chamber approved the transmission of results to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s Result Viewing Portal (IREV), while retaining manual collation as a backup in cases of network failure. However, the Senate stopped short of making electronic transmission compulsory and rejected the inclusion of real-time upload of results.
Critics have argued 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.
“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 said.
He explained that deliberations on electronic transmission had lasted nearly two years, involving consultations 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,” he said.
The senator disclosed that he was absent when the Senate earlier 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 said.
Tracing resistance to electronic transmission to longstanding political divisions, Dickson said, “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 initially 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, he added.
He described the earlier reversal as “unfortunate,” noting that INEC had assured lawmakers it could implement electronic transmission.
“What happened in the Senate last week was unfortunate, especially when INEC had already assured us that it could implement electronic transmission,” he said.
Dickson said he confronted Senate leadership upon his return and was assured that a compromise would be found.
“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,” he said.
Dickson stressed that transparency lies in protecting polling unit results, maintaining that the EC8A form remains the primary evidence of victory.
“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 said.
Although he expressed reservations about the proviso allowing manual collation in cases of network failure, Dickson said compromise was necessary.
“I don’t agree with the proviso that has been included, but parliament works on the basis of majority,” he said. He maintained that electronic transmission remains mandatory under the amended clause: “Every presiding officer shall transmit the result electronically. That is mandatory. That is what we passed today,” he said.
On harmonising Senate and House versions, he said he would adopt the House position, reflecting earlier consensus.
He said, “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 concerns about other provisions, particularly the proposal to compel all 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, Dickson stressed that INEC ultimately holds responsibility. “Even now, without this amendment, INEC guidelines already compel electronic transmission to IREV.” He defended the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling, noting that EC8A forms remain the primary source of proving election results. “The IREV was never intended to be the primary evidence.”
Concluding on electoral reform, Dickson said progress 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.”
