Renowned human rights lawyer, and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has come out strongly against a proposed bill that would make voting mandatory in Nigeria, warning that it infringes on fundamental constitutional rights.
The bill, introduced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, proposes a six-month jail term or a ₦100,000 fine for any eligible voter who fails to participate in elections.
Abbas said the goal is to curb voter apathy, strengthen civic responsibility, and make voting a legal duty rather than a personal choice.
But Falana believes the bill is deeply flawed. “I doubt that the speaker and his colleagues paid sufficient attention to the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution,” he said in a statement issued on Monday, May 19.
“Otherwise, they would have realised that 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 explained that these sections guarantee citizens’ rights to privacy, freedom of thought and conscience, and the choice to register and vote—or not—without state interference.
To illustrate his point, Falana referenced a 2001 Supreme Court judgment in Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v Okonkwo, where the court ruled in favour of a patient who, along with her husband, declined a life-saving blood transfusion because of their Jehovah’s Witness faith.
“In that case, a patient, Mrs Martha Okorie, and her husband belonged to a religious sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who believe that blood transfusion is contrary to God’s injunction.
READ ALSO: NANS Condemns Mandatory Voting Bill, Warns National Assembly of Mass Mobilisation
“On account of the rejection of blood transfusion, the patient lost her life. Dr Okonkwo, who treated the patient, was convicted… but the Supreme Court set aside the conviction on the ground that the doctor was right in respecting the fundamental right of the deceased to refuse blood transfusion on the basis of her religious belief,” Falana said.
He quoted the late Justice Emmanuel Ayoola’s judgment in the case: “The right to privacy implies a right to protect one’s thought, conscience or religious belief and practice from coercive and unjustified intrusion… and a right not to be coerced into acting contrary to one’s religious belief.”
Falana also pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Muslim students’ right to wear hijabs in schools, noting the judiciary’s consistent defence of personal freedoms.
Beyond the legal concerns, Falana described the bill as practically unworkable.
“Apart from the possibility that compulsory voting may be declared illegal under the current political dispensation, it is practically impossible to prosecute millions of Nigerian voters who may decide to boycott national and local elections,” he said.
He urged lawmakers to abandon the proposal and focus on more meaningful reforms to improve Nigeria’s electoral process.
According to him, real progress lies in adopting key recommendations from the Uwais Electoral Reform Panel, including restructuring INEC, introducing proportional representation, resolving election petitions before inauguration, and creating a dedicated electoral offences commission.