A Storm in a Teacup: The Controversy Over Section 63 of Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026

By Okoi Obono-Obla 

A Storm in a Teacup: The Controversy Over Section 63 of Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026

The legislature is the law-making organ of government. In Nigeria, the law-making body at the federal level is the National Assembly, which comprises the Senate and the House of Representatives. At the state level, the law-making organs are the State Houses of Assembly.

When legislatures make laws, they rarely repeal statutes in their entirety. Instead, they often retain certain sections or provisions from older statutes, even when presenting the impression that a law has been completely repealed.

It was therefore surprising when someone suggested that Section 63 subsections (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2026—which stipulates that a presiding officer at a polling unit may use unmarked ballot papers without the official imprimatur of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), provided they were supplied by INEC—was a new and controversial provision.

Former Resident Electoral Commissioner for Akwa Ibom and Cross River States, Mr. Michael Igini, stated on Channels Television that such a section had been absent from previous Electoral Acts. His assertion emboldened some political leaders to demand an amendment to the Electoral Act 2026 to remove the purportedly offensive Section 63 subsections (1) and (2).

However, a study of the Electoral Acts of 2010 and 2022 reveals that identical provisions existed in those laws. In fact, Section 66 subsections (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2010 is a verbatim reproduction of Section 63 subsections (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2026:

Section 66 (1) & (2) of the Electoral Act 2010:
1. Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear the official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
2. Where the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers furnished to the Presiding Officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the official mark, count that ballot paper.

Section 63 (1) & (2) of the Electoral Act 2026:
1. Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear the official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.
2. Where the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers furnished to the Presiding Officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the official mark, count that ballot paper.

It is noteworthy that the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) was used to conduct the 2019 general elections, and it contained the same provisions later found in the 2015, 2022, and now 2026 Acts. Mr. Igini served as Resident Electoral Commissioner during these periods, participated fully in the elections, and never raised objections to these provisions.

From the above, it is clear that the hue and cry raised by Mr. Igini was a storm in a teacup—politically motivated to discredit INEC and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2027 general elections.

Conclusion:
The controversy surrounding Section 63 of the Electoral Act 2026 is misplaced. The provision is neither new nor unusual, having existed in previous Electoral Acts. The attempt to portray it as a novel and dangerous clause appears politically driven rather than grounded in legal reality.