Prominent human rights advocate and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has firmly rejected a proposed bill seeking to make voting compulsory in Nigeria, labelling it as both “unconstitutional” and “impractical” within the context of the nation’s current legal system.
The bill in question is co-sponsored by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, and Labour Party representative, Daniel Asama Ago.
It proposes an amendment to the Electoral Act that would make it mandatory for every eligible Nigerian to vote in both state and national elections.
Under the proposal, individuals who fail to vote would face either a six-month prison sentence or a fine of ₦100,000.
During Thursday’s plenary session, Ago—who represents the Bassa/Jos North constituency—defended the bill, saying it is aimed at tackling voter apathy and limiting the influence of vote-buying.
Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu also voiced his support, pointing to Australia as an example of how compulsory voting has promoted civic engagement.
However, in a statement issued yesterday (19th of May, 2025) titled “Compulsory Voting is Not Enough,” Falana criticised the bill on constitutional grounds.
He argued that the proposed law conflicts with various sections of the 1999 Constitution, which uphold citizens’ rights to privacy, freedom of thought, and conscience.
Falana remarked, “The Speaker of the House probably intends for Nigeria to follow in the footsteps of Egypt—the only African country among 23 worldwide with mandatory voting laws.
But these constitutional provisions protect the rights of Nigerians to privacy, thought, conscience, and voluntary participation in elections. It appears the lawmakers have not thoroughly considered the constitutional implications. Otherwise, they would recognise that compulsory voting contradicts Sections 37, 38, 77(2), 135(5), and 178(5) of the Constitution.”
He further pointed out that the legal argument for enforcing mandatory voting is weak, especially as Chapter II of the Constitution, which contains the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, is not legally enforceable.
“Mandatory voting cannot be implemented in a vacuum. Beyond the likelihood of being declared unlawful under the current democratic system, it is practically unrealistic to prosecute millions of Nigerians who might opt out of elections that they perceive as merely reinforcing a cycle of corruption, poor governance, and abuse of power by the political elite,” Falana warned.
He added that Section 14(2) of the Constitution calls for citizen involvement in governance, but such participation cannot be coerced unless the rights enshrined in Chapter II become justiciable.
Falana also criticised the judiciary for consistently ruling that Chapter II is non-enforceable without examining Section 224 of the Constitution.
This section requires political parties to align their programmes with the objectives laid out in Chapter II.
He noted, “Nigerian courts have failed to consider Section 224, which clearly mandates that the aims and objectives of political parties must conform to Chapter II of the Constitution.”
In addition, he highlighted that public officials are constitutionally required to take an oath pledging to uphold the entire Constitution, including the provisions in Chapter II.
“All public officeholders are constitutionally bound to work toward preserving the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. My argument is that, based on relevant constitutional provisions, both political parties and public officials are legally obligated to adhere to Chapter II,” he stated.
Falana also cited Article 13(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, which affirms citizens’ rights to partake in their government. He concluded by asserting that citizens can only be rightfully compelled to vote if the socio-economic rights contained in Chapter II of the Constitution are rendered justiciable.
