Nigerians and the Noise Over Transmission of Election Results

The debate around electronic transmission of election results in Nigeria continues to generate more heat than light. It has become emotional, ideological, and in many cases detached from how elections actually work. Some have even expressed surprise at my position because I consult on Artificial Intelligence. But this is precisely why clarity is needed.

My stance is not ideological. It is practical, ethical, and systems-based, rooted in the realities of technology, democracy, and inclusion.

First, let us be clear about what this debate is not about. Nigeria does not conduct online voting. Votes are not cast by machines or algorithms. They are cast physically by human beings at polling units. Any argument that treats electronic transmission as if an “AI system” determines winners is fundamentally flawed. What is under discussion is result transmission, not voting.

Second, physical results always come first.
Vote. Count. Record.

In every serious democracy — including the United States and the United Kingdom — elections rely on a primary physical record. This is deliberate and essential. Voting is physical. The counting is witnessed. Party agents sign result sheets. Copies are issued. These physical documents form the foundation of electoral credibility. No credible democracy relies solely on what appears online to declare winners.

Nigeria’s electoral system is designed around this same logic. At each polling unit, votes are counted publicly, results are announced, result sheets are signed by officials and party agents, and copies are distributed. Alongside this, results and accreditation data are also transmitted electronically.

This is not a contradiction. It is a safeguard.

Electronic transmission exists to provide redundancy, enable verification, support audits, and resolve disputes. It becomes critical when there is a conflict — not as a replacement for physical records, but as a supporting layer. If figures are altered at a collation centre, the law allows authorities and the courts to cross-check original result sheets against electronically transmitted data. That is the correct use of technology: to support human processes, not to replace them.

The growing, sometimes disguised, clamour for a “server-only” approach is therefore deeply risky. From an AI ethics and digital inclusion standpoint, relying solely on electronic transmission is dangerous. Nigeria has uneven digital access. Network reliability varies widely. Devices fail. Power fails. Digital literacy is inconsistent. Any system that excludes people or entire regions, no matter how technologically sophisticated it sounds, cannot be democratic. Technology must adapt to society — not the other way around.

If we are truly serious about stopping rigging in Nigeria, the solution is neither fashionable nor complicated. There are no shortcuts. The strongest protections remain human and procedural: party agents at every polling unit, possession of original signed result sheets, independent collation by political parties, and the ability to present physical evidence when disputes arise.

No election petition is won with server screenshots alone. If you go to court without original polling-unit results, no amount of digital evidence will save your case. This is why many election challenges fail.

The hard truth is this: you cannot abandon polling units, fail to deploy agents, rely on social media images, and then expect INEC or the courts to “retrieve results” for you. Democracy does not work on imagination. It works on process, evidence, and presence.

It is time to tone down the noise over transmission and focus on making the best use of the system we already have. Nigeria’s current model — physical results backed by electronic transmission — is not backward. It is balanced. Weakening the physical layer or reducing it to a secondary option would undermine credibility, not strengthen it.

Those who genuinely want credible elections should spend less time shouting “server” and more time investing in grassroots organisation, polling-unit vigilance, and evidence-based legal challenges. Democracies are protected by structure, presence, and proof — not by social media validation.