Every time Nigeria talks about amending the Electoral Act, the conversation is sold as routine housekeeping: tidy up the law, fix loopholes, strengthen democracy, prepare for the next election.
But beneath the calm language of “harmonisation” and “conference committees” lies a far more uncomfortable truth—one rooted deeply in the Nigerian Constitution itself.
The recent decision by the Senate to reconstitute a 12-member Electoral Act Conference Committee, chaired by former Plateau State governor Simon Bako Lalong, has once again dragged Nigeria to a familiar crossroads: how far can politicians legally go in rewriting the rules of elections without rewriting the Constitution itself?
This is where things get messy. And interesting. And controversial.
The Constitution vs. the Electoral Act: Who Really Calls the Shots?
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) is not shy about where power lies.
Section 4 vests legislative authority squarely in the National Assembly.
On the surface, that gives lawmakers the power to amend the Electoral Act whenever they choose.
But here’s the catch many gloss over: the Electoral Act is a child of the Constitution, not its equal.
The Constitution already outlines:
The tenure of elected officials (Sections 76, 116, 132, 178),
The powers and independence of INEC (Section 153 and the Third Schedule), and the timing and conduct of elections.
Any amendment to the Electoral Act that stretches, compresses, or creatively “reinterprets” these provisions risks running into constitutional landmines. This is not theory.
Nigerian courts have repeatedly struck down Electoral Act provisions for being inconsistent with the Constitution.
So when lawmakers promise “far-reaching reforms,” the real question is: reforms within the Constitution—or reforms that quietly test its limits?
Why the Rush? And Why Now?
Senate President Godswill Akpabio’s insistence that the harmonisation process be concluded within days—so presidential assent can be secured within February—raises eyebrows.
Electoral laws are not emergency bills. They shape political destiny, power transitions, and electoral legitimacy.
Yet, Nigeria has a pattern: electoral rules are often fine-tuned closer to elections, not farther away from them.
With the 2027 general elections looming, the stakes are obvious. Control the Electoral Act, and you influence:
How primaries are conducted,
Results are transmitted,
How disputes are resolved,
and how much discretion INEC truly has.
The Constitution says INEC should be independent. Political reality says independence is often negotiated, clause by clause.
Harmonisation Or Political Bargaining?
Officially, the Senate committee will “harmonise” differences between the Senate and House versions of the amendment bill.
Unofficially, conference committees in Nigeria are where politics sheds its robes and speaks plainly.
These closed-door meetings are not just about commas and clauses. They are about:
Party interests versus national interest,
Incumbents versus challengers,
Federal power versus state influence.
The Constitution is silent on conference committees. It assumes good faith. Nigerian politics rarely does.
The Constitutional Silence Everyone Exploits
One of the Constitution’s biggest weaknesses is what it does not say clearly—especially on election technology, result transmission, and internal party democracy. This silence has become fertile ground for controversy.
When lawmakers amend the Electoral Act to regulate electronic transmission or party primaries, critics ask: Are they filling constitutional gaps—or exploiting them?
Supporters argue the Constitution gives the National Assembly flexibility.
Detractors argue lawmakers are effectively amending the Constitution through the backdoor, using ordinary legislation to achieve what should require constitutional alteration and state-level ratification.
This debate is not academic. It goes to the heart of Nigeria’s democracy.
The Lalong Factor And The Optics Of Power
Simon Lalong’s appointment as chairman is symbolic. A former governor, former APC chieftain, and seasoned political insider now presides over a process that could reshape electoral outcomes.
To supporters, this is experience. To critics, it is conflict of interest dressed as competence.
The Constitution does not bar politicians from shaping electoral laws.
But public trust demands restraint—something Nigerian politics struggles to demonstrate.
What This Means For 2027—And Beyond
Lawmakers insist the amended Electoral Act will improve transparency, credibility, and efficiency. Nigerians have heard this before.
Every electoral cycle arrives with promises of reform, followed by familiar disputes, court cases, and public outrage.
Also Read: Photo: NDLEA Officer Killed As Operatives Arrest Six Drug Suspects
The real test is not how fast the committee works or how smoothly the bill is harmonised.
The test is this: Does the amended Electoral Act deepen constitutional democracy—or simply recalibrate political advantage?
Until Nigerians start asking tougher questions about how the Constitution is interpreted, stretched, or sidestepped in electoral reforms, the Electoral Act will remain what it has always been: a battlefield disguised as a legal document.
And as history shows, in Nigeria, the rules of the game often matter more than the game itself.