Digital accreditation refers to the electronic verification of a voter’s identity and eligibility before being allowed to vote. Under the Electoral Act, 2026,
accreditation is unambiguously required to be digitally conducted through the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, popularly known as BVAS (Section 47 thereof refers). To  provide clarity, it is essential to understand that BVAS is an acronym that stands for Bimodal Voter Accreditation System. The term ‘Bimodal’ is derived from the combination of two words: ‘bi,’ meaning two, and ‘modal,’ an adjective formed from the noun ‘mode.’ In essence, the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) signifies an electoral accreditation approach that incorporates two distinct modes of accreditation: biometric fingerprint or facial recognition. The essence of this article is to alert the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Nigerian courts, and other stakeholders on the exclusive digital status of the accreditation process under the Electoral Act, 2026 by the specific mention of BVAS as the prescribed device of accreditation, unlike the 2022 Electoral Act that merely mentioned the use of “a smart card reader or any other technological device”. There are many types of smart card readers, but none was specifically mentioned in the Electoral Act, 2022. The experience of the 2023 general election and the litigation that followed revealed that a hybrid accreditation regime that combined electronic accreditation through the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) with manual marking of the Register of Voters was ultimately upheld by the courts. This position emerged largely from judicial interpretation of the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, which did not expressly specify the particular technological device to be used for accreditation. In resolving disputes, the courts, objectionably, ventured beyond the bare provisions of the statute into INEC’s Manuals, Guidelines, and Regulations for the conduct of the 2023 elections, where references to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System were located and relied upon to validate its use. The Electoral Act, 2026, however, represents a deliberate legislative departure from the framework established by the 2022 Act, signaling a clearer statutory direction regarding the nature and method of voter accreditation. The statutory foundation for exclusive digital accreditation under the 2026 Electoral Act is Section 47, which prescribes the mode of voter accreditation in clear and mandatory terms. For the avoidance of doubt, Section 47 of the Electoral Act, 

2026 provides:

47. (1) Any person intending to vote in an election shall present himself to a
    Presiding Officer for accreditation at the polling unit in the constituency in
    which his name is registered and shall provide permanent voter’s card (PVC).

(2) To vote, the Presiding Officer shall use a Bimodal Voter Accreditation System
or any other technological device that may be prescribed by the Commission,
for the accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm, or authenticate the
particulars of the intending voter in the manner prescribed by the Commission.
(Underlining words mine for emphasis)

(3) Where a Bimodal Voter Accreditation System or any other technological
device deployed for accreditation of voters fails to function in any unit and a
fresh card reader or technological device is not deployed, the election in that
unit shall be cancelled and another election shall be scheduled within 24 hours if
the Commission is satisfied that the result of the election in that polling unit will
substantially affect the final result of the whole election and declaration of a
winner in the constituency concerned. 

 Section 47(2) clearly provides that the accreditation of voters shall be carried out using a Bimodal Accreditation System or any technological device prescribed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for that purpose. The operative word “shall,” under the subsection, has been consistently interpreted in judicial authorities as generally denoting compulsion and leaves no room for discretion or alternative procedures outside those authorised by the statute. By vesting the accreditation process exclusively in BVAS, the Electoral Act establishes a single, unified, and digitally driven method of accreditation, thereby
excluding any parallel or supplementary system of manual accreditation. The legal implication of this provision is that any regulation, guideline, or manual issued by
INEC that purports to introduce or preserve manual accreditation alongside digital accreditation would be inconsistent with the clear provisions of the Act and, to
that extent, ultra vires and of no legal effect. Accordingly, it can now be firmly asserted that under Section 47 of the Electoral

Act 2026, the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) now serves as the primary mechanism for voter accreditation. Section 47(3) provides the operative
legal force underpinning its use as the subsection affirms and legitimizes the technological evolution of the electoral accreditation process, thereby positioning
BVAS not merely as an administrative innovation, but as a statutorily anchored technological instrument for voter accreditation. The exclusivity of digital accreditation through BVAS under the Electoral Act 2026 is further reinforced by the introduction of a strict procedural consequence tied to device failure. Significantly, rather than permitting manual accreditation as an alternative, Section 47(3) establishes a conditional nullification framework, structured around four sequential conditions. In the first place, the law acknowledges that an accreditation device (in this case, BVAS) deployed to a polling unit may fail. Secondly, if the BVAS deployed to a polling unit fails, the law makes provision for a replacement of the device to restore the accreditation process. Thirdly, where a replacement device is not deployed within the time specified under the Act (24 hours), the election in that polling unit shall be cancelled, and a rerun election shall be scheduled. Fourthly, the scheduling of a rerun election in the affected polling unit shall, however, be contingent upon the satisfaction of the Independent National Electoral Commission that the result from that polling unit would substantially affect the overall outcome of the election. In effect, this statutory architecture underscores that technological accreditation is not optional but mandatory, and that failure of the device does not authorize a fallback to manual accreditation, but instead triggers a legally structured process of cancellation and conditional rerun. The doctrine of statutory exclusivity applies with full force in this context.

Where a statute prescribes a particular method for performing an act, that
method—and no other—must be followed. This principle is well established in
administrative and electoral jurisprudence and operates to prevent administrative
bodies from introducing procedures not contemplated by the enabling statute. It
is, therefore, appropriate at this stage, when the INEC Manual, Guidelines, and
Regulations for the 2027 Elections are yet to be published, to draw the attention of
INEC to the fact that the inclusion of manual accreditation as a fallback or
supplementary procedure—whether in manuals, regulations, or guidelines—runs
contrary to the current statutory scheme. INEC should also note the trite law that
administrative instruments cannot override or expand statutory provisions.
Where such conflict arises, the statute prevails, and the conflicting administrative
provisions must yield.

Digital accreditation represents a departure from the traditional and archaic
manual system that relied on marking of voters’ registers. Under the
contemporary statutory framework, accreditation of voters using an electronic
device constitutes not merely an administrative innovation but a statutory
command that forms an integral component of the electoral process. The legal
significance of this development lies in the fact that accreditation constitutes the
gateway to voting. Any compromise in the accreditation process inevitably
undermines the credibility of the voting process itself. Therefore, the statutory
insistence on digital accreditation is not accidental; it is central to electoral
integrity.

The exclusion of manual accreditation under the 2026 Electoral Act should be
taken as reflecting the broader legislative objective of enhancing electoral
transparency and integrity. Historically, it is well known that in Nigeria, manual
accreditation through marking of registers was vulnerable to impersonation of
voters, underage voting, multiple voting, inflation of voter turnout, manipulation of
electoral records, falsification of figures, primitive snatching of ballot boxes, and
stuffing of ballot boxes with thumb-printed ballot papers, amongst other electoral
vices associated with the Nigerian electoral system. The introduction of BVAS
represents a deliberate policy and legislative shift aimed at replacing subjective
human verification with objective biometric verification. By mandating
technological accreditation and indirectly prohibiting manual alternatives, the law
seeks to eliminate opportunities for manipulations associated with manual
systems.

For the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the mandatory use of
the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) imposes stringent operational and
administrative obligations of a non-discretionary character. These obligations
include, but are not limited to, ensuring the adequate deployment of BVAS devices
to all polling units, providing sufficient backup devices to mitigate the risks of
malfunction or power failure, and providing comprehensive and continuous
training to electoral personnel on the proper use, management, and
troubleshooting of BVAS technology. In addition, INEC is required to maintain a
reliable and responsive technical support infrastructure throughout the election
period in order to guarantee the seamless operation of the accreditation process
and to minimize disruptions that may compromise the integrity of the exercise.

Beyond these logistical responsibilities, the Commission retains its statutory duty
under Section 47(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, to prescribe, through its
regulations, guidelines, and manuals, the detailed procedures by which the
particulars of prospective voters are to be verified, confirmed, or authenticated
using BVAS. This regulatory responsibility is not merely administrative but
foundational to the legality of the accreditation process, as the validity of voter
accreditation is ultimately measured against the procedures formally prescribed
by the Commission.

In the days ahead, the Judiciary will be required to play a decisive role in
safeguarding the integrity of electoral processes. Judicial officers who will be
handling election petitions must maintain a clear understanding of the statutory
framework governing accreditation. Training programmes and judicial workshops
should emphasise the legal distinction between statutory commands and
administrative procedures. Judicial clarity on this issue will significantly reduce
the risk of inadvertent validation of unlawful practices.

Nigerian courts should appreciate the shift in the paradigm of electoral
jurisprudence brought about by the positive enactment of BVAS as the sole means
of accreditation under the 2026 Electoral Act. Accordingly, in electoral disputes
that may ultimately arise, courts must distinguish between statutory provisions
and administrative guidelines. While guidelines may assist in understanding
procedural details, they cannot override statutory commands. Therefore, as the
governing statute (Electoral Act, 2026) has prescribed digital accreditation by
BVAS, courts must insist on proof of due compliance with the digital procedures.
Any reliance on manual processes inconsistent with statutory requirements
should be treated as non-compliance.

In conclusion, it is clear that the Electoral Act, 2026, establishes a clear and
mandatory framework for digital accreditation of voters using the Bimodal Voter
Accreditation System. This statutory mandate leaves no room for parallel or
supplementary manual accreditation procedures unless expressly authorised by
law. As Nigeria approaches another electoral cycle, it is imperative that all
stakeholders—including electoral administrators, legal practitioners, judicial
officers, and prospective voters—recognise the exclusive digital character of the
accreditation process. The avoidance of past pitfalls requires strict fidelity to
statutory provisions, careful alignment of administrative instruments with
legislative mandates, and vigilant judicial interpretation. This is one of the crucial
ways that the integrity of the accreditation process can be preserved and the
credibility of the 2027 elections assured.