Minority members of the House of Representatives on Tuesday staged a dramatic walkout from plenary to protest against the passage of key provisions in the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2025, accusing the majority of placing partisan interests above the integrity of the electoral process.
The lawmakers, largely from the opposition parties, gathered in front of the mace, chanting “clause by clause” and urging the Speaker to preside, in protest against the manner in which the bill was being handled. Tension escalated as members raised their voices in objection to reconsidering legislation previously passed in December.
Their demonstration followed the adoption of Clause 60(3), which provides for both real-time electronic transmission and manual transmission of election results, as well as Clause 84, which prescribes modes of candidate nomination by political parties.
Earlier, the Green Chambers rescinded its December 2025 passage of the Electoral Act amendment bill to allow for fresh consideration of key provisions. Among the clauses revisited were Clause 28 on notice of election, Clause 60(3) concerning transmission of results, and Clause 84, which outlines procedures for nomination of candidates by political parties.
The decision followed an executive session convened after opposition lawmakers attempted to block the move to reverse the earlier passage. When plenary resumed for clause-by-clause consideration, some members expressed dissatisfaction with the process.
The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, who chaired the Committee of the Whole, informed members that deliberations on the bill had concluded at about 2pm on Tuesday.
On Clause 60(3), Rep. Bamidele Salam had moved a motion seeking the deletion of the provision allowing manual transmission of results, arguing that elections should be transmitted electronically without exceptions. The motion was seconded by Minority Leader, Rep. Kingsley Chinda.
But when put to a voice vote, the “nays” prevailed, retaining both manual and real-time electronic transmission in the law. The decision triggered visible anger among minority lawmakers, who later walked out of plenary to address journalists.
Following the disruption, the Deputy Speaker restarted proceedings, announcing each clause individually before calling for votes, which temporarily restored order.
However, tempers flared again when Clause 60 — a provision that has drawn significant public and political attention in recent days — was called. Lawmakers resumed chanting and again moved toward the mace in protest.
The House subsequently resolved to conduct a division, following a motion moved by Leke Abejide, to determine its position in accordance with its rules.
Clause 60 of the amended version of the House bill reads, “The Presiding Officer shall electronically transmit the results from each polling unit to the IREV portal, and such transmission shall be done after the prescribed Form EC8A has been signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and/or countersigned by the candidates or Polling agents where available at the Polling Unit.
There is however a proviso which states that “provided that if the electronic transmission of the result fails as a result of communication failure and it becomes impossible to transmit the result contained in form EC8A signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and countersigned by the candidates or polling agents where available at the polling unit, the form EC8A shall remain the primary source of collation and declaration of the result.”
Addressing reporters, Rep Kingsley Chinda said the minority could not support any provision that, in their view, opens the door to manipulation of election results.
“Our position is that elections shall and should be transmitted electronically,” he declared. “We are against any clause that would give room for micro-manipulation, rigging, or leeway for any untoward act.”
He disclosed that the minority had proposed that where there is any conflict between the manually collated Form EC8A results and electronically transmitted results, the electronically transmitted version should prevail.
“Those positions were torn down,” he said. “And we are aware that they were torn down by members of the APC, not on grounds of patriotism, but on grounds of political party affiliation.”
The Leader of the minority caucus explained that the walkout was a deliberate move to formally register their objection before Nigerians.
“For us, after what happened on the floor, we felt it was better to register our position with Nigeria, which is the court of public opinion. So we had to leave the plenary. We had to walk out to address you,” he stated.
The minority also opposed the passage of Clause 84, which deals with primary elections and the method of candidate selection by political parties.
According to Chinda, the caucus maintains that the choice of whether to adopt direct primaries, indirect primaries or consensus arrangements should remain strictly an internal affair of political parties.
“Our position remains that the method of selection of candidates should be an internal party affair. Political parties should be allowed to determine what method they want to adopt in selecting candidates that will represent them,” he said, stressing that imposing a particular mode of primaries would amount to undue interference in party administration.
“We support that parties should be allowed to adopt the method best suited for them direct primaries, indirect primaries, or consensus primaries,” he added.
Despite the protest and walkout, the House proceeded with the amendments, setting the stage for what is expected to be intense political debate as the country inches closer to the 2027 general elections.
The latest development underscores deep partisan divisions within the Green Chamber over the direction of Nigeria’s electoral reforms, with the minority vowing to continue mobilising public opinion against provisions they believe could undermine transparency and internal party democracy.
