Every election cycle in Nigeria revives the same demand: results must be transmitted in real time. Many believe this alone will end rigging and restore trust. While the intention is good, the debate often ignores both technical reality and political strategy.
First, Nigerians must understand the difference between BVAS accreditation and result transmission. BVAS works offline because each device already carries the voters’ register for its polling unit. It simply matches fingerprints or faces with stored data. No internet is needed.
Transmission is different. After voting and counting, results must move from the polling unit to INEC’s central server. That process needs network connectivity. No signal, no upload. It is like opening a saved document on your phone versus sending a WhatsApp message. One works offline; the other needs internet.
Nigeria has over 176,000 polling units, many in forests, riverine areas, hills, and rural communities where even phone calls struggle. Demanding real-time upload everywhere without fixing infrastructure is like demanding online banking in villages without electricity.
Electronic transmission has merit. It reduces manual interference, speeds up collation, and improves transparency where networks exist. But it is not magic; it only works where infrastructure supports it.
There is also a political angle often ignored. The agitation for “real-time transmission” can double as preparation for election petitions. Politicians already know some areas lack internet. By insisting absolutely on instant upload, they create a weapon: when delays happen for technical reasons, they claim the process is flawed and drag elections into prolonged litigation. What begins as a transparency demand can become post-election warfare.
Global practice offers useful perspective. In the United States and United Kingdom, there is no nationwide real-time upload from every polling unit to a central system. Votes are counted locally and announced as collation finishes. Media report in real time, but official transmission is structured, verified, and incremental.
Even in advanced digital systems like Brazil, electronic voting machines store results locally and consolidate them later; they are not fully internet-dependent at every polling point. Estonia, famous for e-voting, still combines technology with strong verification and legal controls rather than blind instant transmission.
The lesson is simple: real-time transmission is rare as an absolute rule, even in advanced democracies. What matters more is auditability, infrastructure, and institutional discipline.
Nigeria should therefore focus on expanding telecom coverage, providing backup transmission systems, strengthening hybrid collation (manual plus digital), and punishing proven manipulation. Technology should support integrity, not replace it.
Electronic transmission is good. Real-time transmission is desirable. But without infrastructure and institutional maturity, it risks becoming less about credibility and more about creating excuses for disputes.
Before demanding instant digital results everywhere, Nigeria must first build the roads for data to travel on.
