Professor Bode Ayorinde is a distinguished legal scholar, former member of the House of Representatives and an educationist. He earned his PhD in Law from Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), where he also served as a lecturer. Appointed a full Professor of Law by Nasarawa State University, Keffi, he currently serves as the Head of the Department of Private and Business Law of the institution. He is also the Pro-Chancellor of Achievers University, Owo. In this interview with ROTIMI AGBOLUAJE, Ayorinde said amending the Electoral Act is a sign of democratic maturity and not instability.
There have been growing calls for amendments to the Electoral Act ahead of the 2021 elections. What, in your view, is driving this agitation?
The agitation for amendments to the Electoral Act is both natural and necessary within the context of democratic development. The integrity of any electoral process depends fundamentally on three critical pillars: first, the strength and clarity of the law governing elections; second, the integrity and capacity of the institutions charged with administering the law; and third, the political will of government to conduct elections that are free, fair, and credible.
Among these three factors, the law is the most foundational. The law establishes the standards, procedures, and boundaries within which all actors must operate. Without clear legal provisions, it becomes impossible to demand accountability or complain about omissions or failures. You cannot fault an institution for not doing something if the law itself does not mandate it. Therefore, while institutional capacity and political will are important, the strongest determinant of electoral integrity remains the strength, clarity, and internal consistency of the Electoral Act. As democracies mature, it is expected that laws will be reviewed periodically to address weaknesses identified during previous election cycles. Democracy is not static; it is a learning process that evolves through experience.
Every election reveals certain gaps, ambiguities, or unintended consequences in the law. These lacunae should not be ignored. Instead, they should be carefully examined and addressed through amendments before the next election cycle. This is how democratic systems improve over time.
There is no perfect system anywhere in the world. Even the most advanced democracies continuously review and amend their electoral frameworks. Perfection is desirable , is not realistic . What is important is the willingness to identify problems honestly and take corrective action promptly.
Some critics argue that frequent amendments to electoral laws suggest instability. Do you see regular amendments every four years as a problem?
I don’t consider regular amendments to the Electoral Act to be a problem at all. On the contrary, I see them as evidence of democratic growth and institutional learning. Our democracy is relatively young. While some democracies have histories spanning over 200 or 300 years, Nigeria’s democratic journey, in its current form, is only a few decades old. It is unrealistic to expect a young democracy to produce a perfect legal framework immediately. Even in older democracies, laws are constantly reviewed and refined. Consider tax laws, commercial regulations, or constitutional provisions, none of them remain static. After implementation, weaknesses become evident, and lawmakers return to parliament to improve them.
Our parliament is not a part-time institution. It is a central pillar of democracy. One of its core responsibilities is to respond to emerging realities and societal needs through legislation. When lawmakers observe that certain provisions are inadequate or counterproductive, it is their duty to amend them. Amendment, therefore, should not be interpreted as failure. Rather, it reflects a process of correction and improvement. Expecting a perfect law is utopian. Laws become better through experimentation, implementation and review.
For example, the last amendment to the electoral law, relating to party primaries led to unintended consequences, including the exclusion of the lawmakers themselves and the excessive commercialisation of the process. Once such outcomes are observed, the appropriate response is to amend the law. The same applies to issues such as electronic transmission of election results or voter accreditation technologies. As long as any aspect of the electoral framework undermines credibility, transparency, or public confidence, it must be corrected. That is how democratic systems mature.
To what extent do imperfections in the Electoral Act contribute to election-related litigation?
To a very large extent, imperfections in the Electoral Act contribute directly to election litigation. Where laws are ambiguous, inconsistent, or incomplete, disputes are inevitable. Litigation thrives in the presence of loopholes.
In Nigeria, political power is fiercely contested because of the structure of the economy. We are not yet an industrialised nation. In more industrialised societies, people can live comfortably without holding public office. Economic opportunities exist outside government, and political participation is driven more by ideology and service.
In Nigeria, however, elections often serve as gateways to economic survival. Political office has become a major source of employment and access to resources. This reality heightens competition and incentivises disputes.
Given this context, it is imperative that the Electoral Act be as watertight as possible. The law should anticipate potential challenges and resolve them in advance. Where the law is clear and comprehensive, the scope for litigation is significantly reduced. A strong Electoral Act that anticipates crises and provides clear remedies will reduce post-election disputes and enhance public confidence in the system.
As a former member of the House of Representatives, how feasible is it for the National Assembly to undertake meaningful electoral reforms, particularly when it may benefit from existing defects?
The National Assembly is fundamentally a representative institution. It represents the entire Nigerian nation, not individual interests. Its constitutional mandate is to promote good governance, enact laws for peace and order, and act as a check on the executive arm of government. Lawmakers are not elected to pursue personal gain. They are elected to serve the public interest. If personal benefit were the primary consideration, the legislature wouldn’t have enacted provisions that excluded legislators from participating in party primaries. That decision alone demonstrates that lawmakers are capable of subordinating personal interests to national priorities. Therefore, the argument that the National Assembly can’t reform the electoral system because it benefits from defects is not entirely accurate. With political will, parliament can amend identified loopholes within a very short period, sometimes within months. Electoral reforms do not require decades of deliberation. Once problems are clearly identified and consensus is built, corrective legislation can be enacted swiftly. The key mindset among legislators, when acting in good faith, is national interest. When that principle guides decision-making, meaningful reforms are not only feasible but inevitable.
What role do legal scholars, civil society organisations, and professional bodies such as the Nigerian Bar Association play in shaping electoral reforms?
Their role is critical. The law-making process in Nigeria provides mechanisms for public participation, particularly through public hearings. After a bill passes its first and second readings, it is referred to relevant committees, which then invite public input. At this stage, individuals, civil society organisations, professional associations, and interest groups can submit memoranda highlighting weaknesses, proposing alternatives, and offering expert insights. The Nigerian Bar Association, for example, brings immense legal expertise to the process. Public hearings are designed to ensure inclusiveness and transparency. Even individuals who are not formally invited can attend and make submissions. This ensures that legislation reflects broad societal input rather than narrow elite interests.
To be effective, stakeholders must study the law carefully, identify areas for improvement, and present constructive proposals. This collaborative approach strengthens legislation and enhances its legitimacy.
Do you believe the current Electoral Act sufficiently supports the use of electoral technology, particularly electronic transmission of results?
The use of electoral technology, especially electronic transmission of results, is absolutely essential to modern elections. Once votes are counted at the polling unit and transmitted electronically, opportunities for manipulation are drastically reduced.
Paper-based systems are vulnerable. When physical documents are transported from one location to another, they are exposed to human interference. We must acknowledge that our systems are not yet immune to such risks.
Automation reduces the role of human discretion and increases transparency. Just as banking has embraced digital platforms, where transactions occur instantly without physical contact, the electoral system must also evolve.
The Electoral Act should provide clear statutory backing for the use of technology. It should mandate electronic transmission, specify standards and impose sanctions for non-compliance. Proper infrastructure, training and backup systems must also be provided.
When technology is properly embedded in law, manipulation becomes extremely difficult, and public confidence in the electoral process increases significantly.
How can amendments to the Electoral Act better insulate INEC from political pressure and strengthen accountability?
The primary objective of many proposed amendments is to insulate the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from undue political interference. If the law mandates that results be transmitted electronically directly from polling units, INEC officials are shielded from external pressure.
An INEC chairman or official can simply point to the law and say, “The results are already online. There is nothing I can do.” This legal backing empowers officials to act professionally and independently.
Clear legal provisions also strengthen accountability. If polling unit officials fail to transmit results electronically, they should face clearly defined penalties. Such consequences compel compliance and discourage misconduct.
Ultimately, these reforms shift political competition back to the electorate. Politicians will focus more on campaigning and voter engagement rather than manipulation. This is essential for democratic consolidation.
Nigeria is often described as being overwhelmed by election petitions. How can reforms reduce litigation while preserving access to justice?
Access to justice must never be compromised. The courts are not the problem. In fact, judicial resolution of disputes is far better than taking laws into one’s hands.
What has already been achieved is the streamlining of timelines for election petitions. Unlike in the past, when cases dragged on for years, current laws set strict deadlines for filing, hearing, and resolving disputes.
Further reforms can explore completing election litigation before the swearing-in of elected officials. This would prevent situations where individuals occupy office while legal disputes are ongoing.
It is also possible to limit appeals to certain levels, such as making the Court of Appeal the final arbiter in some cases. These are policy choices that can be debated and refined. What is important is that the law provides clarity and finality without shutting the doors of justice to aggrieved parties.
