A former Resident Electoral Commissioner of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mike Igini, has blamed the Supreme Court of Nigeria for what he described as the lingering confusion in Nigeria’s electoral system.

Igini made the remarks on Wednesday while speaking on The Morning Show, a program on Arise Television. He traced the history of electoral reforms in the country and highlighted what he considers judicial decisions that have undermined technological innovations introduced to improve transparency.

According to him, members of the National Assembly had, under Section 52 of the Electoral Act at the time, prohibited the use of electronic voting machines due to fears surrounding the introduction of technology into the electoral process.

“The members of the National Assembly under Section 52, they were scared, and they prohibited the use of any electronic thing. In fact, they use the word “no electronic voting machine.” That was the language that was used,” he said.

Igini explained that reform efforts later targeted provisions such as Section 49, which he described as enabling election manipulation by granting presiding officers wide discretion in accrediting voters.

“But we came in, we saw Section 49, Section 52, and Section 68, and we declared election rigging provisions. And for 20 years, we fought to get those provisions removed,” he stated.

He noted that during the tenure of former INEC Chairman, Attahiru Jega, biometric accreditation was introduced, beginning with the Temporary Voter Card (TVC), later replaced by the Permanent Voter Card (PVC), and eventually the smart card reader.

“By the time Attahiru Jega came in, we started with what he called biometric… From TVC, we moved to PVC. From PVC, we moved to the smart card reader to deal with section 49,” Igini said.

He explained that the smart card reader was introduced to authenticate voters and curb malpractice but was later ruled by the Supreme Court as subordinate to manual accreditation because it was not expressly provided for in the Electoral Act.

“Painfully, the Supreme Court declared that all—oh, the smart card reader, beautiful device. However, it should have been written in the Electoral Act,” he added.

Igini also criticized the court’s position on INEC’s Result Viewing Portal (iReV). He said INEC guidelines mandated the upload of polling unit results to the portal to enhance transparency and prevent alteration.

“The Supreme Court tribunals declared that the regulation and guidelines of INEC stated clearly… that where the results that have been declared at the polling unit are expected or mandated to be sent to the iReV… The Supreme Court said that iReV is an amusement center, is a viewing center, is of no effect, and all that,” he said.

He argued that earlier judicial authorities had recognized three principal legal frameworks governing elections: the Constitution, the Electoral Act, and regulations and guidelines issued by INEC pursuant to constitutional provisions.

“The question now is, what happened to the lineup of authorities… when the Court declared that in any elections, there are three principal legal frameworks that govern the election, which are the Constitution, the Electoral Act, and indeed regulations and guidelines made pursuant to both in the Constitution,” Igini queried.

According to him, recent decisions of the apex court have thrown Nigeria’s electoral system into disarray and fueled ongoing debates about the credibility and legal status of technological innovations in the country’s elections.