
Abuja, Dec. 18, 2025 – The House of Representatives has intensified penalties for electoral offences in Nigeria, approving stiffer fines and jail terms as part of amendments to the Electoral Act, 2022.
At Thursday’s plenary, lawmakers endorsed a 10-year prison term or a fine of N75 million for anyone convicted of forging nomination papers or destroying election result sheets. The fine marks a sharp rise from the N50 million penalty previously stipulated in the principal Act. Additionally, improper use of a voter’s card now attracts a N5 million fine.
In contrast, the House rejected a proposal that sought a two-year jail term for persons who financially or materially induce delegates to manipulate outcomes in party primaries, congresses, or conventions. Lawmakers cited concerns over potential political abuse, arguing that such a provision could be weaponised to harass aspirants and candidates.
Over-Voting Reforms
The amendments also recalibrated how electoral authorities respond to over-voting. The previous law mandated outright cancellation of results and rerun elections in affected polling units. Under the new framework, excess votes will be deducted proportionately from all candidates’ scores, while the presiding officer in the affected unit will face prosecution.
Explaining the legislative rationale, Chairman of the House Committee on Electoral Matters, Adebayo Balogun, said the Electoral Bill 2025 was initially conceived as a full replacement of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“The proposal aimed to consolidate gains from recent elections and address emerging challenges within Nigeria’s electoral system,” Balogun said.
He added that the committee had proposed far-reaching reforms, including early voting, inmate voting, replacing the Permanent Voter’s Card with technology-driven accreditation mechanisms, and adjustments to electoral timelines. “These innovations would have fundamentally altered the structure and philosophy of the Electoral Act 2022,” Balogun said.
However, legislative procedures shaped the House’s final decision. “In this case, since several transformative provisions were not approved at committee stage, the House, sitting as a Committee of the Whole, resolved that amendment rather than outright repeal was the more appropriate path,” he explained.
The changes mark a significant step in tightening electoral accountability, while reflecting lawmakers’ balancing act between deterrence and the risk of political misuse of legal provisions.



















