By Opatola Victor Esq.
victor@lacivler.org
INEC has announced a nationwide voter revalidation exercise ahead of the 2027 elections. It is being framed as a necessary step to clean the register, remove underage voters, prevent multiple registrations, and restore public confidence. On the surface, it sounds reasonable. But a closer look at the law reveals a far more troubling reality.
The Electoral Act 2026 is clear about INEC’s powers. Sections 9, 10, and 11 give the Commission authority to compile, maintain, and update the National Register of Voters. Update, in legal terms, means correcting mistakes, removing duplicates and adding newly qualified voters. It is important to note that while the source of INEC’s power to “update” voters’ list is legal in nature, yet the nature of its exercise remains administrative; and it is about the register itself, not about compelling every voter to physically or electronically “reconfirm” their voter status. Nowhere in the law was it envisaged that all registered voters must take action to re-validate their registration. Nowhere does the Act authorize mandatory reconfirmation by voters as a prerequisite for voting participation.
Under the Electoral Act 2026 and even the previous electoral laws, the architecture of voter registration is deliberate and complete. A citizen who satisfies the requirements is registered and entered into the voters’ register. That status is not provisional or temporary and it is not subject to periodic renewal. Nowhere, not in text, not in structure, not in implication; does it authorize INEC to compel already registered voters to present themselves again to retain their status.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 guarantees the right of citizens to participate in elections. That right cannot be narrowed, diluted, or conditioned by administrative exercise. Only the National Assembly can determine the qualifications for voting. INEC’s role is to implement the law, not to rewrite it. By making revalidation compulsory, INEC is precisely introducing a new qualification for voting under the guise of revalidation.
Under the pretence of unlawful revalidation, INEC is turning an inalienable right to vote into a subscription model that needs renewal. Today it is revalidation. Tomorrow it could be periodic biometric confirmation (PBC). Next, residency recertification or PVC re-confirmation. Once it starts, it doesn’t stop. Each step is sold as “integrity,” but each step systematically shrinks Nigeria’s democratic space.
The law already provides mechanisms to address errors: the Claim for Correction of Our Insertion of Name in Preliminary List (Form EC.2). This form allows a voter to request a correction if their details are missing, duplicated, or incorrectly recorded in the register. Crucially, this process is voluntary. It is for those who notice a mistake, not a universal requirement imposed on all 93 million registered voters. Form EC.2 is a clear illustration of how the law anticipates errors without imposing a sweeping obligation and inconvenience on every citizen.
The Act also sets boundaries. Section 9(6) stops registration, updating, and revision 90 days before an election. Section 11 allows INEC to appoint officers to perform registration or update. Section 12 defines who qualifies to be registered. Nowhere does the Act authorize mandatory reconfirmation by voters as a prerequisite for participation. Compulsory revalidation, therefore exceeds the Commission’s legal authority.
INEC claims this exercise is about integrity. Yet Sections 9 and 11 already provide the tools for maintaining accuracy. Technology has been used to remove duplicates. Collaboration with other agencies has identified non-Nigerians. Continuous registration has ensured eligible voters are added. None of these measures require compelling every registered voter to revalidate.
The consequences are real. In a country with over 93 million voters, those who do not comply and revalidate could be excluded. “Revalidation”, as INEC presents it, is different from “update”. INEC’s revalidation demands that every voter take compulsory proactive steps to maintain the validity of their registration. While “update” , as empowered by the law, is a duty of INEC. Revalidation, however, turns the responsibility onto the voter. In effect, it transforms an administrative role of INEC into a potential tool of disenfranchisement.
A voter register must be credible, but it must also be lawful. It must be accurate, but it must also be fair. Cleaning the register should not come at the cost of excluding people who have already done everything the law asked of them.
If INEC so much desire the powers to impose revalidation on voters, then it should return back to the National Assembly to include it in the law, until then it has no such powers. Until such provision is passed into Law, INEC’s current gamble with compulsory revalidation is a dangerous step toward undermining the foundational credibility of the 2027 elections.
*Opatola Victor is the National Coordinator, Lawyers for Civil Liberties; and can be reached via Victor@lacivler.org*
