The House of Representatives has strengthened Nigeria’s electoral offence regime, endorsing stiffer penalties for key violations through amendments to the Electoral Act, 2022.
At Thursday’s plenary, lawmakers approved a 10-year jail term or a N75 million fine for individuals found guilty of forging nomination papers or destroying election result sheets—an increase from the N50 million fine stipulated in the Principal Act. Additionally, the House sanctioned a N5 million fine for the improper use of a voter’s card.
However, the House rejected a proposal to impose a two-year prison sentence on individuals who financially or materially influence delegates during party primaries, congresses, or conventions, citing concerns over potential political abuse. Members argued that such a law could be weaponised against aspirants or candidates by opponents.
The amendments also reformed the handling of over-voting. Previously, results in polling units with over-voting were automatically cancelled, and fresh elections were mandated. Under the new framework, excess votes will now be proportionally deducted from all candidates’ scores, while the Presiding Officer in the affected polling unit faces prosecution.
Explaining the rationale, Chairman of the House Committee on Electoral Matters, Adebayo Balogun, said the Electoral Bill 2025 was initially intended as a complete overhaul of the Electoral Act, 2022. The aim was to consolidate gains from recent elections and address emerging challenges in the electoral system.
“The committee, guided by stakeholder engagements, public hearings and expert submissions, initially proposed far-reaching reforms aimed at modernising the electoral framework,” Balogun said. These included early voting, inmate voting, replacing the Permanent Voters’ Card with technology-driven accreditation, adjusting electoral timelines, and other innovations that would have fundamentally altered the structure of the Electoral Act, 2022.
Balogun added that legislative procedure shaped the House’s final decision. “In legislative practice, repeal and reenactment is appropriate where proposed changes fundamentally transform an existing law. Since several transformative provisions were not approved at committee stage, the House resolved that amendment, rather than outright repeal, was the more appropriate path,” he explained.
