Renowned human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has vehemently opposed a proposed bill to make voting compulsory in Nigeria, labeling it “unconstitutional” and “impractical” under the current legal framework. The bill, co-sponsored by House Speaker Tajudeen Abbas and Labour Party lawmaker Daniel Asama Ago, seeks to amend the Electoral Act to mandate voting for all eligible Nigerians in national and state elections, with penalties of a six-month jail term or a ₦100,000 fine for non-compliance.
During Thursday’s plenary, Ago argued that the bill would address voter apathy and curb vote-buying, while Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu cited Australia’s compulsory voting model as a successful precedent. However, in a statement titled *‘Compulsory Voting is Not Enough’* issued on Monday, Falana challenged the bill’s constitutionality, asserting that it violates key provisions of the 1999 Constitution, including Sections 37, 38, 77(2), 135(5), and 178(5), which protect citizens’ rights to privacy, freedom of thought, and freedom of conscience.
Falana argued that the bill’s legal foundation is weak, as Chapter II of the Constitution, which outlines the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, remains non-justiciable. “Compulsory voting cannot be legalized in a vacuum,” he stated, warning that prosecuting millions of Nigerians for boycotting elections—often seen as a protest against misgovernance and corruption—would be practically impossible. He emphasized that mandatory voting could only be justified if Chapter II were made justiciable, aligning with Section 224, which mandates political parties to conform to these principles.
Citing Article 13(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Falana stressed that citizens’ right to participate in government must be voluntary unless socio-economic rights in Chapter II are enforceable. He referenced judicial precedents, including *Nwali v Ebonyi State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors (2014)*, which ruled that open ballot voting violates privacy rights, and *Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v Okonkwo (2001)*, where the Supreme Court upheld freedom of thought and conscience. Additionally, he cited *Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative & Ors v National Identity Management Commission (2020)* and *Lagos State Govt & Ors v Asiyat AbdulKareem (2022)*, which reinforced protections for privacy and religious freedoms.
Falana also criticized the lack of constitutional backing for electronic election tools like BVAS and IReV, noting that the Supreme Court has ruled their use is not yet recognized under the Electoral Act. He urged the National Assembly to prioritize amending the Electoral Act to integrate these technologies and adopt recommendations from the Uwais Electoral Reform Panel, such as unbundling INEC, introducing proportional representation, resolving election petitions before swearing-in winners, and establishing an electoral offences commission.
The SAN called for an immediate review of the controversial bill, warning that its passage would contradict constitutional guarantees and undermine democratic principles. “Having regard to the state of the law, compulsory voting cannot be legalized in vacuo,” Falana concluded, urging lawmakers to focus on strengthening electoral processes rather than coercive measures.
