Falana Reacts To Compulsory Voting Bil
THECONSCIENCE NG reports that Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has strongly opposed the proposed bill to make voting compulsory in Nigeria, declaring it “unconstitutional” and “impractical” under the current legal framework.
The bill, co-sponsored by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, and Labour Party lawmaker Daniel Asama Ago, seeks to amend the Electoral Act to make voting mandatory for all Nigerians of voting age in national and state elections. It proposes a six-month jail term or a fine of ₦100,000 for eligible citizens who fail to vote.
During the plenary on Thursday, Ago, who represents Bassa/Jos North, argued that the bill aims to curb voter apathy and reduce vote-buying. Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu supported the bill, citing Australia as a model where compulsory voting has reportedly enhanced civic responsibility.
However, Falana, in a statement issued on Monday titled ‘Compulsory Voting is Not Enough’, faulted the legislative move on constitutional grounds.
He said the bill is inconsistent with several provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantee citizens’ rights to privacy, freedom of thought, and freedom of conscience.
“The Speaker of the House of Representatives probably wants Nigeria to join Egypt—the only African country out of 23 globally with provisions for compulsory voting.
“The said constitutional provisions protect the fundamental rights of the Nigerian people to privacy, freedom of thought and conscience, as well as the freedom to register and vote in national and state elections conducted in Nigeria.
“However, it is doubtful whether the Speaker and his colleagues have paid sufficient attention to the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Otherwise, they would have realised that the compulsory voting is constitutionally invalid in every material particular on the ground that it is inconsistent with Sections 37, 38, 77(2), 135(5) and 178(5) of the Constitution,” he stated.
He argued that the legal foundation for mandatory voting is shaky since Chapter II of the constitution outlines the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, which remain non-justiciable.
“Compulsory voting cannot be legalised in vacuo. Apart from the possibility that it may be declared illegal under the current political dispensation, it is practically impossible to prosecute millions of Nigerians who may decide to boycott national and local elections that have been reduced to the periodic renewal of misgovernance, corruption, and abuse of power by pampered members of the political class,” Falana warned.
“Since Section 14(2) of the Constitution provides for popular participation in the democratic process, compulsory voting may only be justified if Chapter II thereof is made justiciable,” he said.
Falana criticised Nigerian courts for dismissing the enforceability of Chapter II without considering Section 224 of the Constitution, which mandates political parties to align their programmes and policies with the principles in that chapter.
“Nigerian courts have never considered Section 224, which states that ‘the programme, as well as the aims and objects of a political party, shall conform with the provisions of Chapter II of this Constitution,’” he said.
He also cited sections of the constitution which require public officeholders to swear to uphold the Constitution, including the directive principles in Chapter II.
Falana maintained that both political parties and officeholders are legally bound to respect the socio-economic rights of citizens.
“Each of these public officers is mandatorily required to swear or affirm to ‘strive to preserve the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“The point I am struggling to make is that by the combined effect of the relevant provisions of the Constitution, all political parties and members of the executive and legislature are under a legal obligation to comply with the provisions of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Chapter II,” he said.
He further invoked Article 13(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, which guarantees citizens the right to participate in government.
“Citizens can be justifiably compelled to vote only if the socio-economic rights set out in Chapter II are made justiciable,” Falana added.
Citing several precedents, Falana stressed that compulsory voting violates both legal and moral boundaries. “The National Assembly is advised to review the controversial bill without any further delay,” he stated.
The SAN also criticised the lack of constitutional backing for electronic election devices such as BVAS and IReV, despite their role in improving electoral credibility. “The Supreme Court has ruled that the use of these devices is not yet recognised under the Electoral Act or the Constitution,” he stated.
According to Falana, the legislative focus should shift toward amending the Electoral Act to formally integrate technological innovations like BVAS and to adopt key recommendations from the Uwais Electoral Reform Panel.
These include unbundling INEC, introducing proportional representation, concluding election petitions before the swearing-in of winners, and establishing an electoral offences commission.
He stated that unless Chapter II of the Constitution—containing the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy—is made justiciable, enforcing compulsory voting would remain a legal contradiction.
“Having regard to the state of the law, compulsory voting cannot be legalised in vacuo,” the lawyer declared.
Falana referenced Nwali v Ebonyi State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors (2014), where the Court of Appeal ruled that open ballot voting violated the right to privacy.
The senior lawyer also cited Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v Okonkwo (2001), where the Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom of thought and conscience, emphasising that individuals cannot be coerced into actions that conflict with their beliefs.
Falana noted that in the case, the court reversed a disciplinary sanction on a doctor who had respected a patient’s religious refusal of blood transfusion, stressing that coercion undermines constitutional rights.
Further highlighting judicial positions, he pointed to Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative & Ors v National Identity Management Commission (2020), where a judge ruled that the right to privacy extends beyond physical spaces to personal data and decisions.
On religious freedoms, he cited the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Lagos State Govt & Ors v Asiyat AbdulKareem, which upheld Muslim students’ right to wear the hijab in public schools, reaffirming that religious expression is constitutionally protected.
