Photo File: INEC LOGO

The Senate on yesterday proposed transferring the burden of proof in election petitions from aggrieved candidates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) — a move lawmakers say will strengthen transparency and credibility in Nigeria’s electoral process.

The proposal formed part of deliberations on a bill to repeal the 2022 Electoral Act and enact a new Electoral Act 2025, which scaled second reading on the Senate floor.

Senators backing the reform, including Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator Seriake Dickson (Bayelsa West), argued that INEC, as the organiser and regulator of elections, should bear the responsibility of proving that polls it conducts are “free, fair, and credible.”

“If there is one major achievement we must secure in this 10th Senate, it should be meaningful electoral reform,” Dickson said. “INEC conducts elections, appoints ad-hoc officials, collates and announces results; it should therefore bear the primary burden of proving that elections were conducted in accordance with the law.”

Akpabio supported the view, insisting that the electoral umpire must be held accountable for its operations.

“INEC is in charge of logistics and conduct; it is best positioned to carry the burden of proof in litigations,” he said.

Under current law, election petitioners must prove irregularities in line with the Evidence Act, which holds that “he who asserts must prove.”

Opposition Reactions

The proposal divided opposition parties. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) described the move as “dangerous and premature,” arguing that INEC’s credibility issues make it unfit for such responsibility.

PDP Deputy National Youth Leader Timothy Osadolor said that “INEC cannot yet be trusted to be independent, neutral, or truthful,” warning that placing the burden of proof solely on the commission could “endanger democracy.”

The Labour Party (LP) expressed mixed reactions.
Factional spokesperson Prince Tony Akeni said the reform “sounds great on the surface” but could empower corrupt officials without strong penalties.

“If they are sincere, they must build in adequate sanctions for INEC officials who manipulate results,” he said.

Another LP spokesman, Obiora Ifoh, dismissed the plan entirely, citing controversial judgments in Imo and Adamawa elections.

“How can the same INEC that glossed over irregularities now be the one to defend the process?” he asked.

However, Obidient Movement coordinator Dr. Yunusa Tanko backed the Senate’s stance, arguing that “the proof rightly belongs to INEC,” since it holds election records and materials.

The New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) also supported the move, with its National Publicity Secretary Ladipo Johnson urging penalties for politicians who file frivolous election petitions.

Beyond the burden of proof debate, the Electoral Act 2025 Bill, sponsored by Senator Simon Lalong (APC, Plateau), proposes several sweeping changes: INEC to conduct local government elections, removing the role of state electoral commissions, Optional use of Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) for accreditation, Mandatory real-time electronic transmission of results, Automatic loss of seat for defecting lawmakers.

Senator Abdul Ningi (Bauchi Central) also called for all elected officials to be recognised as delegates in party primaries.

Lalong described the legislation as a “comprehensive reform, repeal and re-enactment not a mere amendment,” noting that the 2022 Act exposed “deep flaws” in electoral management and enforcement.

Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele (APC, Ekiti) said the review process would be concluded before December 2025 to allow adequate time for implementation ahead of the 2027 general elections.

“We will ensure the Electoral Act is amended early enough so it does not clash with election timelines,” Bamidele said, reaffirming the Senate’s commitment to credible electoral laws and democratic stability.

Analysts say that if passed, the proposal to shift the burden of proof to INEC could reshape Nigeria’s post-election litigation landscape either enhancing transparency or, as critics warn, placing excessive trust in a commission still grappling with credibility concerns.