Can Obi Legally Create a Parallel Election Results System?

Peter Obi’s proposal for an independent system to receive election results from every polling unit alongside the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) raises an important question ahead of the 2027 general election: can a political candidate or organisation operate a parallel results-transmission system without violating Nigeria’s electoral laws?

Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the 2023 election and now a leading figure of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), made the proposal during an interview with ARISE News. He said there would be a system capable of receiving results transmitted from polling units, apparently allowing his political camp to independently monitor results as they move through the official electoral process. “Read Obi’s interview on ARISE News”

But does the law allow such a system?

What exactly is Obi proposing?

The distinction is important.

Obi’s proposal, as described in the interview, is not simply about asking INEC to improve its existing electronic transmission system. It suggests establishing an independent channel capable of receiving results from polling units at the same time as INEC’s system.

In practical terms, the process could look like this:

Polling unit → INEC’s official system

and at the same time:

Polling unit → independent monitoring system

Such a system could allow Obi’s organisation to maintain its own database of polling-unit results and compare those figures with results eventually collated by INEC.

That is different from creating a second body with the power to declare the winner.

What does the Electoral Act say?

The Electoral Act 2026 gives INEC the legal framework for managing election results.

Section 60 provides that after votes have been counted at the polling unit and the prescribed result form, EC8A, has been completed and signed, the Presiding Officer is to electronically transmit the result to the INEC Result Viewing Portal, IReV.

The law also recognises the EC8A as the primary source where electronic transmission fails because of communication problems. In that situation, the signed and stamped physical result remains the basis for collation and declaration.

This means the law does not leave the determination of an election to whichever electronic database happens to contain the most results.

The official electoral process remains tied to the results recorded at the polling unit and the statutory collation process administered by INEC.

INEC itself has also said its result-management system includes safeguards intended to check the figures entered into BVAS against accreditation data before results are uploaded to IReV.

Can Obi’s system receive the same results?

In principle, yes, if it functions as an independent monitoring or verification mechanism rather than an alternative electoral authority.

There is already a role for political parties and their agents in observing the counting and collation process.

INEC says polling agents represent their parties during voting, counting and collation. They are permitted to observe the process, countersign result forms and receive copies of signed and stamped result forms.

The Electoral Act also provides that completed result forms are signed and countersigned at the relevant levels, with copies provided to polling agents where applicable.

That creates an important legal basis for parties to maintain their own records.

A party could therefore use its polling agents to collect copies or images of the signed EC8A forms and send the information to a central database. It could then compare its records with the results displayed or transmitted through INEC’s system.

That would amount to parallel verification, not necessarily parallel election administration.

Where could Obi’s proposal become unlawful?

The legal difficulty would arise if the independent system moved beyond monitoring and began assuming powers reserved for INEC.

For example, a privately operated system could not simply declare that its figures were the legally binding national result.

It could also create legal problems if people operating the system interfered with voting, counting, collation or the work of election officials.

INEC’s rules allow party agents and accredited observers to watch the process, but they are not permitted to interfere with the conduct of the poll or the counting of ballots.

The Electoral Act also criminalises certain forms of false result declaration. Section 124 provides that a political party or party agent who conspires to make a false declaration of an election result commits an offence. It also makes it an offence for any person to knowingly announce or publish an election result that is false or at variance with the signed certificate of return.

That provision is particularly important for any proposed independent results platform.

A system designed to record, verify and expose discrepancies is one thing.

A system that begins announcing an alternative winner based on its own figures is another.

Could two systems operate at the same time?

Technically, there is no obvious reason why an independent database could not receive information while INEC operates its own official system.

The crucial issue is legal status.

INEC is the institution responsible for the official electoral process. Its electronic system is part of that process, while an independent platform would not automatically acquire the legal authority to collate or declare election results simply because it possesses copies of polling-unit results.

In fact, independent collection of polling-unit results is not entirely unprecedented. Election observers and political parties have historically gathered polling-unit data to conduct independent assessments and parallel vote tabulation.

The value of such a system is that it can provide an audit trail against which the official process can be examined.

But its figures would remain an independent record unless the law gives them official status.

So, is Obi’s proposal legal?

Yes, potentially — if the proposed system is strictly a monitoring, verification or parallel data-collection platform.

There is a major difference between saying, “We will independently receive and verify the results from polling units,” and saying, “We will operate another official channel through which election results will be transmitted and declared.”

The first can fit within the existing role of political parties and election observers.

The second would raise a much more serious constitutional and statutory question because the Electoral Act assigns the official conduct, collation and declaration of elections to the established electoral machinery.

For Obi’s proposal to remain on the safe side of the law, therefore, the independent system would need to complement INEC rather than compete with it.

It could collect copies of EC8A forms, compare polling-unit figures with IReV, identify discrepancies and preserve evidence for possible electoral disputes.

But it could not replace INEC’s statutory role.

That distinction may become increasingly important as Nigeria prepares for the 2027 election, when public confidence in electronic transmission and the integrity of results will again be tested.

The real question, therefore, is not whether Nigeria can have two databases containing election results.

It can.

The question is whether Obi’s proposed system would remain a parallel verification mechanism or become a parallel electoral authority.

Under the current legal framework, the former appears possible; the latter would require a clear legal basis that a private political organisation does not currently possess.