When the Senate passed the 2022 Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill on Wednesday, many Nigerians expected it to close the gaps exposed in the 2023 general election.

A major reform Nigerians had looked forward to was the legal backing for compulsory real-time electronic transmission of election results. The Senate, however, rejected the proposal, extinguishing expectations of a stronger accountability framework.

The rejection triggered public outrage, renewed distrust in the electoral system, and reopened debates about transparency.

Supporters of the Senate’s amendment insisted that nothing has changed: electronic transmission remains in the law. But critics say something fundamental was lost: a chance to make transparency compulsory.

So what exactly did the Senate do? Why is it controversial? What have the courts said that has led Nigerians to demand real-time electronic transmission of election results? And what does it mean for future elections?

This explainer breaks it down.

WHY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF RESULTS IS A BIG ISSUE

For decades, Nigeria’s elections have been marred by allegations of manipulation during the collation of results. While voting often proceeds peacefully at polling units, disputes usually arise later — when results are moved from one collation centre to another.

To address this, INEC introduced technological tools such as the bimodal voter accreditation system (BVAS) and the INEC result viewing portal (IReV) ahead of the 2023 elections. The goal was to ensure that once the results are counted and signed at polling units, they should be uploaded online for everyone to see.

This would reduce human interference, improve transparency, and allow citizens to verify results independently, no matter their location.

However, because these tools were not clearly entrenched in law, their use remained discretionary. That legal lacuna became a major problem in 2023.

WHAT DID THE SENATE REJECT?

At the centre of the controversy is clause 60(3) of the amendment bill.

The proposed amendment reads: “The presiding officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IREV portal in real time, and such transmission shall be done after the prescribed Form EC8A has been signed and stamped by the presiding officer and/or countersigned by the candidates or polling unit agents, where available at the polling unit”.

It clearly stated that this must occur after Form EC8A has been signed and stamped. Form EC8A is used to record political party votes at the polling units.

This amendment intends to make electronic transmission compulsory, ensure it is real-time, and link it directly to IReV. In other words, it would have transformed electronic transmission from a discretionary exercise into a legal duty.

But the Senate rejected this proposal. Instead, it adopted section 60(5) of the existing Electoral Act 2022, which says: “The presiding officer shall transfer the results, including the total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot, in a manner as prescribed by the Commission”.

This version leaves everything to the discretion of the electoral umpire, implying that INEC may choose electronic transmission where it is practicable. There have been arguments that several communities in the country are not covered by a telecommunication network to support the electronic transmission of results.

WHAT’S AKPABIO’S DEFENCE?

As public criticism mounted, Senate President Godswill Akpabio moved to clarify the chamber’s position.

“The social media is already awash with reports that the Senate has literally rejected the electronic transmission of results. That is not true,” he said.

“This senate under my watch has not rejected the electronic transmission of results. It is in my interest as a participant in the next election for such to be done. So, please don’t go with the crowd.”

From a strictly legal standpoint, Akpabio is correct.

Section 50(2) says that “Subject to section 63 of this Act, voting at an election and transmission of results under this Act shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Commission”.

Section 62 (2) further stipulates that the commission “shall compile, maintain and update, on a continuous basis, a register of election results to be known as the National Electronic Register of Election Results which shall be a distinct database or repository of polling unit by polling unit results, including collated election results, of each election conducted by the Commission in the Federation, and the Register of Election Results shall be kept in electronic format by the Commission at its national headquarters”.

The senate did not remove electronic transmission from the law.

WHY CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS ARE DISPLEASED 

Civil society organisations that worked on the proposed amendment see the Senate’s decision as a step backwards.

One of the strongest critics is Samson Itodo, executive director of Yiaga Africa.

“What the senate has done is to betray the trust of Nigerians and to make a mess of all the gains that we have made,” he said.

More importantly, Itodo accused the Senate of ignoring clear judicial guidance. According to him, courts have already ruled that electronic transmission is “unknown to the law” because it is not explicitly stated. Therefore, the national assembly had a duty to fix that gap.

HOUSE OF REPS VERSION 

Unlike the Senate, the House of Representatives adopted the clause mandating real-time transmission.

This difference reflects two approaches to the reform. While the house made it mandatory, the senate favours discretion, leaving INEC flexibility as provided in the extant law.

Both chambers must now harmonise these differences, among others. The outcome will depend on which amendment the conference committee adopts.

WHAT THE COURTS SAID ABOUT E-TRANSMISSION OF RESULTS

Before the 2023 election

Before the 2023 elections, the Labour Party (LP) went to the federal high court in Abuja, seeking to compel INEC to adopt an electronic method for transmitting 2023 election results.

In January 2023, Emeka Nwite, the presiding judge, dismissed the case. He ruled that section 60(5) allows INEC to choose its method.

“This is to say that the commission is at liberty to prescribe or choose the manner in which election results shall be transmitted,” the judge said.

He added that nowhere in the law is INEC mandated to use electronic means.

“In view of the foregoing, can the act of the defendant (INEC) in collating and transferring election results manually in the forthcoming 2023 general elections be said to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022? The answer can only be in the negative as there is nowhere in the above-cited sections where the commission or any of its agents is mandated to only use an electronic means in collating or transferring election results,” the judge said.

“If any, the commission is only mandated to collate and transfer election results and the number of accredited voters in a way or manner deemed fit by it.”

After the 2023 election

After the 2023 election, disputes over IReV and the transmission of results reached the Supreme Court.

In a ruling, Inyang Okoro, who read the lead judgment, made several crucial clarifications.

1. IReV is not a collation system

The judge said IReV is not a collation system, but is meant to allow the public to view polling unit results on election day; therefore, if IReV fails, the election process does not stop.

The court noted that where the IReV portal fails, it does not stop the collation of results, which, up to the last election, was manually done, adding that the malfunctioning of the IReV deprives the public and even election administrators and monitors of the opportunity of viewing the portal and comparing the result collated with the ones transmitted into the IReV.

2. INEC has the power to choose transmission methods

The court interpreted sections 60(5), 62(1), and 64 of the Act, stating that INEC is at liberty to prescribe the manner in which election results are to be transmitted.

Although “shall” is used in the law, the court said it does not impose a strict obligation to use electronic means.

3. IReV failure cannot invalidate elections

The court ruled that the unavailability of the election result on the IReV portal cannot be a basis for nullifying an election, since hard copies are held by INEC, the police, and party agents.

“Thus, the unavailability of the election result on the IReV portal for whatever reason cannot be a ground upon which an election could be nullified, particularly as it was not the case of the appellants that the hard copies of the result sheets did not exist at any level of collation,” the court said.

WHY THESE RULINGS MATTER TO THE AMENDMENT BILL

These rulings created a clear legal reality. Under the current law, electronic transmission is optional. Courts will not compel it. This is why critics expected the amendment to close that loophole.

By refusing to mandate real-time transmission, critics believe the Senate preserved the same legal weakness identified by the courts.

The controversy cannot be separated from what happened in 2023.

During the February 25 presidential election, many polling units failed to upload results promptly. INEC blamed technical glitches, while opposition parties alleged manipulation.

Despite protests, Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was declared the winner. His main challengers — Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party — went to court. Although they lost, many Nigerians felt the system failed.

That is why this amendment matters so much. It was seen as a chance to prevent a repeat in the upcoming 2027 elections.

A GLIMMER OF HOPE

The Senate and House have set up a conference committee to reconcile the amendment since they both passed different versions.

The Senate conference committee is made up of Simon Lalong (Plateau, APC), Adeniyi Adegbonmire (Ondo, APC), Tahir Monguno (Borno, APC), Adamu Aliero (Kebbi, APC), Orji Kalu (Abia, APC), Abba Moro (Benue, PDP), Asuquo Ekpeyong (Cross River, APC), Aminu Abass (Adamawa, PDP), and Tokunbo Abiru (Lagos, APC).

The House of Representatives panel comprises Bayo Balogun (Lagos, APC), who chairs the panel, Fred Agbedi (Bayelsa, PDP), Sada Soli (Katsina, APC), Ahmadu Jaha (Borno, APC), Igariwey Iduma Enwo (Ebonyi, APC), Saidu Musa Abdullahi (Niger, APC), and Zainab Gimba (Borno, APC).

This committee will decide whether the House version prevails or the Senate position is adopted.

Source: The Cable

Distinguished guests, revered elders, family members, friends, ladies and gentlemen,

We gather here today not merely to mark the passage of years, but to honour a life that has given meaning to time itself. An 80th birthday is not measured by age alone, but by the lives touched, the values upheld, and the legacy quietly built over decades.

I stand here with deep humility, fully aware that speaking in honour of Sir Jonas Odocha is not a privilege granted by age, but one earned through relationship, trust, and the generous regard of a man whose life has been an enduring lesson in character. That I am permitted to speak today is itself a testament to Sir Jonas’ belief in investing wisdom forward—allowing the next generation not only to learn from his words, but to grow under the shelter of his example.

Our celebrant and I first crossed paths about two decades ago in Ikoyi, Lagos. At the time, I was the Features Editor at THISDAY Newspaper. I had received an invitation to a party— whose precise purpose has faded with time. What I do remember clearly, however, was learning that a kinsman, a topshot at the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), was the host.

That evening marked the beginning of a relationship that would profoundly shape my life. I was introduced to Sir Jonas Odocha and his gracious wife, Dame (Dr) Ngozi Odocha—our Big Sister and Auntie, whom we affectionately and fondly call Da Ngoo. From that moment, Sir Jonas and Daa Ngoo became constants in my journey: mentoring me, guiding me, listening patiently, and offering counsel whenever I stood in need.

When I made the life-altering decision to leave paid employment and venture into media entrepreneurship, Sir Jonas stood firmly by me. On July 7, 2015, at the unveiling of Sundiata Post in Abuja, he was among the earliest to arrive. Beyond his presence, he gave substance—serving pro bono for a period as a columnist, lending credibility, wisdom, and encouragement at a crucial stage. Therefore, today, I am here not merely as a journalist or publisher, but as someone paying tribute to a man who has treated me like a beloved son.

Born on January 9, 1946, in Elele, Rivers State, to Anglican missionary parents, Sir Jonas Odocha’s life reflects the power of vision, discipline, and service. From modest beginnings, he rose to national and professional prominence, never losing sight of his roots or his responsibility to give back. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, “The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honourable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived.” Sir Jonas has indeed made that difference.

His education at the University of Ibadan and later at the prestigious Imperial College, London, laid a solid intellectual foundation for a distinguished career in Petroleum Geology. His ascent at the NNPC—alongside his secondment to Nigeria LNG as General Manager, Human Resources—and eventual retirement as Group General Manager, NNPC, exemplifies Martin Luther King Jr.’s timeless counsel: “If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted.” Sir Jonas served with excellence, integrity, and patriotic commitment.

His passion for mentorship extended naturally into academia. As a Visiting Adjunct Associate Professor of Petroleum Engineering at the Federal University of Technology, Owerri (FUTO), he bridged theory and practice, lighting fires rather than merely filling pails. His life affirms the belief that education is most powerful when knowledge is shared generously.

Sir Jonas has always understood the power of ideas and public engagement. From his presence at the unveiling of Sundiata Post to his columns and enduring op-ed contributions, he has demonstrated that thoughtful words can shape minds, institutions, and even nations. Truly, the pen remains mightier than the sword.

Retirement, for Sir Jonas, was not an ending but a new beginning. After a decade of consultancy in Energy, Environment, and Safety, he ventured boldly into farming. His latest book, Farming for Beginners: A Simple Guide for First-Time Farmers, being launched on this occasion, reflects Helen Keller’s conviction that “Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all.” Once again, Sir Jonas chose purpose over comfort.

Deeply loyal to his roots, he remains a distinguished Old Boy of Government Secondary School, Owerri, and an active member of its Old Boys Association. His life embodies the simple truth that we rise by lifting others.

Faith anchors his values. As a Knight of St. Christopher of the Anglican Church and a major benefactor of St. Simon’s Anglican Church Parish, Ogbor-Uvuru, Aboh Mbaise, Sir Jonas lives out the biblical injunction that “to whom much is given, much will be required.” His generosity speaks louder than any title.

At the heart of his many achievements is family. His enduring marriage to his wife and childhood love, Dr. Ngozi Odocha, reflects Leo Tolstoy’s wisdom that “the sole meaning of life is to serve humanity.” And indeed, service—beginning at home—has defined Sir Jonas’ life.

Geologist, adjunct professor, author, farmer, mentor, churchman, and public intellectual, Sir Jonas Odocha personifies purposeful living. As Winston Churchill once observed, “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.” At 80, Sir Jonas continues to give—his time, his wisdom, his voice, and his example.

As we celebrate these eight dazzling decades, we are reminded that legacy is not measured in years, but in impact. Sir Jonas Odocha’s life affirms that a life lived with purpose never truly grows old.

Happy 80th Birthday, Sir Jonas Odocha, our hugely respected Big Daddy, illustrious son of Uvuru, Mbaise; the pride of Da Ngoo, beloved father of CHINOMSO, UGOCHI, EBERE, NNENNA and dotting grandfather of  9 children.

Your impact endures.

Your purpose continues to inspire us.

Thank you.

•Being speech delivered by Dr Max Amuchie, CEO, Sundiata Post Media Ltd, at the 80th birthday celebration of Sir Jonas Odocha and public presentation of his book, Farming for Beginners: A Simple Guide for First-Time Farmers at Chida Hotel, Utako, Abuja on Saturday, 31st January 2026.

By Ambassador T Brikins

In every generation, the Church must answer an old question dressed in new clothing.

Not, “Is this fashionable?”
Not, “Is this allowed?”
But rather,
“Does this glorify Christ?”

For the believer does not merely ask what is permitted.
He asks what is profitable.
He asks what is pure.
He asks what resembles his Lord.

Currently, a conversation stirs the waters of the Nigerian Christian community. A respected pastor, known for counseling families and teaching conservative values, unveiled a tattoo upon his arm. Some applauded his liberty. Others questioned his example. Voices rose. Opinions clashed. Social media became a courtroom.

Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper matter.
Not ink.
Not skin.
But identity.
For the true question is not, “What is wrong with a tattoo?”
The true question is, “Whose mark do you bear?”

The Ancient Prohibition

The Scriptures speak first in Leviticus:
“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.”
— Leviticus 19:28
To modern ears, this sounds severe. But the command did not arise from mere dislike of body art.
Israel lived among nations who:
carved their flesh for the dead,
branded themselves for idols,
inscribed the names of false gods upon their skin,
and cut themselves in frenzy before Baal.
Their markings were not decorative.
They were devotional.
Every incision was allegiance.
Every symbol was worship.

So God, jealous for covenant loyalty, said in effect:
“You shall not carry the marks of another master.”
Israel was to be different — not merely in ritual, but in identity.

From External Marks to Inner Seals

But Christ came.
And with Him came a better covenant.
No longer written on stone.
Now written on hearts.
No longer enforced by external signs.
Now produced by inward transformation.
Under the New Covenant, righteousness is not tattooed on the skin.
It is engraved by the Spirit.

Paul declares:
“Circumcision is nothing… but keeping the commandments of God.”
— 1 Corinthians 7:19
Meaning: outward markings neither save nor sanctify.
A man may have bare skin and an unclean heart.
Another may carry scars and yet love God deeply.
Thus, tattoos do not automatically condemn a believer.
But neither are they spiritually meaningless.
For though the law has changed, wisdom remains.
And Christian freedom is never careless freedom.
“All things are lawful… but not all things are beneficial.”
— 1 Corinthians 10:23

The Question of the Temple

Scripture introduces another truth — solemn and sobering:
“Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?”
— 1 Corinthians 6:19
The believer’s body is not private property.
It is sacred space.
A temple is not decorated impulsively.
It is treated reverently.
Not everything that can be done to the body should be done to it.
For stewardship is worship.
And permanence demands wisdom.
What we inscribe on the body today may speak for decades.
Thus the Spirit-filled believer asks:
Does this honor the temple — or merely express the self?

Identity and Witness

In truth, tattoos throughout history have rarely been neutral.
They have marked:
tribal belonging,
military allegiance,
slavery and ownership,
secret societies,
gang loyalty,
or rebellion.
They communicate.
And communication shapes witness.
Christians must remember:
The gospel travels not only through sermons, but through symbols.
Paul, though free, restrained his liberty:
“We avoid anything that may discredit the ministry.”
— 2 Corinthians 6:3
Especially leaders.
Especially shepherds.
Especially those whose lives others imitate.
For influence multiplies consequences.
What may be permissible for one may become a stumbling block for many.
Love sometimes limits freedom.

Fruit, Not Ink

Jesus gave the true measuring rod:
“By their fruits you shall know them.”
Not: By their clothes.
Not: By their hairstyle.
Not: By their tattoos.
But by:
character,
humility,
obedience,
holiness,
love.
A tattoo neither proves rebellion nor righteousness.
Yet it raises a deeper test:
What fruit accompanies it?
If the Spirit governs the heart, wisdom governs choices.

The Medical Reality

Even science whispers caution.
Tattooing is not harmless art.
It involves:
needles puncturing the skin thousands of times,
foreign pigments lodged permanently beneath tissue,
risks of infection,
allergic reactions,
hepatitis transmission if poorly sterilized,
heavy metal toxicity in some inks,
and keloid scarring — particularly common in darker African skin.
Removal often scars worse than application.
Thus even physically, the body pays a price.
And stewardship of health is also spiritual obedience.

The Higher Call of Discipleship

In this age of personality-driven Christianity, many ask:
“How far can I go and still be saved?”
But the disciple asks:
“How much like Christ can I become?”
Jesus never emphasized self-expression.
He emphasized self-denial.
Paul never defended his rights.
He surrendered them for the gospel.
“Follow me, as I follow Christ.”
This is the pattern.
Not trend-following.
Not culture-testing.
But Christ-reflecting.
Freedom Guided by Love

So where does this leave us?

Not in legalism.
Not in condemnation.
Not in reckless liberty.
But in holy wisdom.
Tattoo is not automatically sin.
Yet neither is it automatically wise.
It belongs to that tender category called Christian liberty — where decisions are governed not merely by permission, but by purpose.

Before any permanent mark, the believer should kneel and ask:
Can I dedicate this to God?
Does this magnify Christ or myself?
Will this strengthen my witness?
Will weaker believers stumble?
Does my conscience rest in peace?
For whatever is not from faith is sin.
Marked or Sealed?
In the end, the believer needs no ink to declare ownership.
He already bears a mark.
Not visible to the eye.
But blazing in eternity.
“Having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.”
— Ephesians 1:13
This is our tattoo.
This is our brand.
This is our identity.
Not etched by needles.
But sealed by God.
And that mark is enough.

@AmbassadorTBrikins

#Christians
#church leaders
#young believers

#What does the Bible say about tattoos
#Leviticus 19:28 meaning
#Tattoos in Christianity

#Following Christ
#Biblical wisdom
#Sanctification

#Ministry integrity
#Avoiding stumbling blocks
#Influence and responsibility
#Shepherd leadership

#Faith and modern culture
#Christianity and self-expression
#Church and fashion

#Medical facts about tattoos
#Temple care
#Preventive health awareness

#Christianity in Nigeria
#Pastor Kingsley Okonkwo
#Church culture Nigeria