By John Onyeukwu, Esq.

The recent legislative proposal to impose compulsory voting on Nigerian citizens, with a punitive N100,000 fine for noncompliance, is a deeply flawed approach to democratic reform. While low voter turnout is undeniably troubling, coercing electoral participation undermines the very essence of democratic freedom and violates core constitutional principles. A democracy is measured not only by participation but by the freedom to choose whether or not to participate.
Compulsory voting, however well-intentioned, is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and misguided in Nigeria’s socio-political context.

I. The Right to Vote Is a Right, Not a Compulsory Duty
The 1999 Constitution (as amended), Section 77(2), states clearly: ” Every citizen of Nigeria who has attained the age of eighteen years residing in Nigeria at the time of the registration of voters for the purposes of election to a legislative house shall be entitled to be registered as a voter for that election.” This is an entitlement, not a mandate.
Similarly, Section 117 of the Electoral Act guarantees the right to vote, but nowhere does it suggest it is a legally enforceable duty. The framers of our Constitution and lawmakers intentionally omitted compulsion in voting because liberty, not state coercion, is the cornerstone of democratic participation.
In Charles v. Federal Electoral Commission (2015), the Court of Appeal noted that “the right to vote includes the freedom not to vote, just as freedom of speech includes the freedom to remain silent.” Compulsory voting would, therefore, offend the implied constitutional right to political autonomy.

II. A Dangerous Precedent for State Overreach
If the state can force citizens to vote, under penalty of a N100,000 fine, what prevents it from compelling political opinions next? Compulsory voting sets a precedent for state overreach into conscience, which is protected under Section 38 of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of thought and belief.
Democracy requires participation, yes, but that participation must be voluntary. A coerced vote is not a free vote. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson warned in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), “compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

III. Misreading Section 24: Civic Duty Must Be Balanced with Constitutional Rights
Advocates of compulsory voting frequently invoke Section 24 of the Constitution, which outlines civic obligations such as loyalty to the nation and community contribution. However, no clause in Section 24 mandates electoral participation. More importantly, civic obligations cannot override justiciable rights in Chapter IV, including personal liberty (Section 35), freedom of thought (Section 38), and freedom of association (Section 40).
Democratic participation cannot be built by violating constitutional freedoms. In Minister of Home Affairs v. NICRO (South Africa, 2004), the Constitutional Court held that “participation in elections must be free of coercion; democracy is not sustained by compulsion but by voluntary commitment.”

IV. Comparative Jurisdictions: Lessons from Mixed Outcomes
It is true that Australia and Belgium enforce compulsory voting, but they are high-capacity states with near-universal education, robust civic systems, and independent electoral commissions.
By contrast, in Egypt, Brazil, and Singapore, compulsory voting has been criticized for being a tool of state control rather than democratic enhancement. In Brazil, fines are minimal, yet enforcement is inconsistent. In Egypt, authoritarian regimes have used compulsory voting to inflate turnout figures for legitimacy without real choice.
Nigeria, with its logistical constraints, insecurity, displacement, and lack of voter education, lacks the administrative capacity to enforce such a law fairly. Who will verify exemptions for illness, travel, displacement due to insurgency, or poverty?

V. The Fine is Punitive, Discriminatory, and Unjust
A N100,000 fine in a country where the minimum wage is N30,000 and over 60% live in multidimensional poverty is not a deterrent, it is a punishment for poverty. The law will disproportionately affect the rural poor, unemployed youth, and displaced persons, many of whom are unable to vote due to systemic failure, not apathy.
Rather than punishing the disenfranchised, the state should fix the structural issues that keep them from voting: insecurity, poor polling logistics, lack of ID cards, electoral violence, and mistrust in INEC.

VI. Participation Must Be Earned, Not Forced
Democracy flourishes when people are inspired, not compelled. The solution to voter apathy lies in restoring public trust, not coercion. Let the government ensure:
• Transparent and credible elections
• Security at polling units
• Civic education programs
• Political reforms that reduce corruption and vote-buying
When citizens believe their vote counts, they will show up, no compulsion needed.
As Nelson Mandela said, “a nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.” Nigeria must earn the participation of its people, not demand it at the barrel of a financial gun.

Conclusion: Democracy is About Choice, Including the Choice Not to Vote
The path to stronger democracy in Nigeria lies not through compulsion but through credibility. Voting is a right, not a legal obligation. It is a personal act of conscience, not a civic performance for state validation.
Compulsory voting, especially with disproportionate fines, violates constitutional liberty, lacks feasibility, and misses the point: people are not voting because they are disillusioned, disenfranchised, and excluded. Fix that first.

In defending democracy, let us not abandon freedom.

John Onyeukwu, Esq.
Legal Practitioner, Governance and Public Policy Analyst

By Sylvester Udemezue

MEMORY VERSE:

“The cost of voting in Nigeria includes your life, and that’s a price too high to demand.”
~ Premium Times Commentary, March 2023

The Nigerian House of Representatives recently passed the second reading of a bill seeking to make voting compulsory for all eligible citizens in national and state elections. Sponsored by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas and Hon. Daniel Asama Ago, the proposed legislation is said to aim to curb vote-buying, combat voter apathy, and enhance democratic participation across the country.

During the debate, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu lent his support, arguing that mandatory voting would reduce electoral malpractice and citing countries like Australia, where such laws have led to consistently high voter turnout. Some lawmakers, however, expressed serious reservations, particularly concerning widespread public distrust in the electoral system and the questionable integrity of the national voters register. [See: “Bill to Make Voting Compulsory for Nigerians Passes Second Reading in Reps” (Channels Television, 15 May 2025)].

Reacting to the development, renowned human rights advocate and former Chairman of the NBA Ikeja Branch, Dr. Monday Ubani, SAN, published a strong defense of the bill. In an article dated 17 May 2025, he described the proposed law as timely and necessary, and submitted that “laws without consequences are ineffective.” He argued that just as tax laws and traffic laws are enforced, voting should carry the same civic obligation. He then proposed a ₦100,000 fine for non-compliance, not as punishment, but as a deterrent, and called for exemptions in cases of valid incapacity, such as illness. Dr. Ubani pointed to Australia’s 90% voter turnout under its compulsory voting framework as a model worth emulating. [See: “Laws Without Consequences Are Ineffective: Ubani, SAN Backs Compulsory Voting with Exemptions, Cites Australia’s 90% Turnout” (TheNigeriaLawyer, 17 May 2025).

This commentary is a critical but respectful rejoinder to Dr. Ubani’s position and a strong appeal to the National Assembly to halt the progression of this bill. The current writer believes that proceeding with such legislation without first addressing the structural and institutional failures within Nigeria’s electoral system may end up institutionalizing oppression and penalizing citizens who are justifiably disillusioned. It is proposed herein that the legislature should consider the real causes of voter apathy before imposing punitive civic obligations on the very people it seeks to serve. The current writer’s position is summarized below:

1. The Bill and Proposal for Compulsory Voting Are Ill-Conceived: While distinguished Learned Silk Monday Ubani’s patriotism is not in question, it is respectfully submitted that his proposal, as summarized above, is gravely misdirected, ill-conceived, and especially insensitive to the pitiable plight of Nigerians. With due respect, the Bill for compulsory voting, and Dr. Ubani’s argument in support of the Bill, both fail to appreciate the unique socio-political realities of Nigeria. More importantly, they appear to ignore the foundational flaws of the Nigerian electoral system, a system marred by fraud, insecurity, corruption, judicial compromise, and widespread public disillusionment.
2. The Problem Is Not Voter Apathy but Systemic Betrayal: Contrary to Dr. Ubani’s underlying assumption, Nigerians are not apathetic by default. Rather, they are disenchanted, having witnessed repeated betrayals by electoral institutions. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) recently reported that voter turnout in the 2023 general elections stood at a historic low of 27.1%, the worst since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999. This plummeting turnout is not a result of irresponsibility on the part of Nigerian voters but a reflection of lost confidence in the entire electoral process. NOI Polls is the reputable country-specific polling agency in the West African region. A 2022 NOI Polls survey revealed that 73% of Nigerians do not believe elections are free and fair. This statistic speaks volumes. Why would rational citizens engage with a process they believe is rigged ab initio? Cardinal John Onaiyekan, a Nigerian prelate of the Catholic Church, once said, that “Where elections are stolen, the idea of democracy is killed.” It is thus seen that the Nigerian voter abstains not from negligence, but from the informed belief that the system is compromised.
3. Institutional Failure and the Sabotage of Electoral Reforms: The Electoral Act 2022, a product of decades of advocacy, mandated the direct electronic transmission of polling unit results (see Sections 60 – 64 of the Act). This reform was intended to curb the historical plague of result manipulation. However, during the 2023 elections, INEC deliberately jettisoned this provision, citing vague “technical glitches” and then resorting to manual collation. This action by INEC fundamentally violated the spirit of the law and reopened the door to manipulation and post-ballot rigging, as results could be altered in transit or during collation at higher levels. Even worse, the judiciary, regarded as the last hope of the common man, legitimized this travesty. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court held that electronic transmission of results was not mandatory, effectively erasing any gains from the 2022 reforms. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, lamented: “The system failed us. The judiciary failed us. The reforms failed us.”
4. Violence, Intimidation, and Insecurity at the Polls: The Nigerian electoral environment is often violent and unsafe. During the 2023 elections: (i) over 100 cases of election-related violence were documented (SBM Intelligence); (ii) CLEEN Foundation reported insecurity in over 300 polling units; (iii) YIAGA Africa confirmed at least 21 fatalities from election-related attacks; (iv) Armed thugs, often acting with the protection of political godfathers, invaded polling centres, assaulted voters, and snatched ballot boxes; (v) In several states including Lagos, Rivers, and Kogi, voters were warned not to come out at all unless they supported particular candidates. Premium Times wrote in March 2023 that “The cost of voting in Nigeria includes your life, and that’s a price too high to demand.” It is thus both morally and legally indefensible to compel citizens to vote under such circumstances. Voting in Nigeria is not merely a civic duty; it has become a high-risk activity, akin to navigating a war zone.
5. The Trust Deficit: In developed democracies like Australia, which Dr. Ubani holds up as a model, voter trust in electoral institutions is high; 76% of Australians trust their Electoral Commission (Australian Electoral Study, 2022). Further, 86% of Australians express satisfaction with election integrity. In Nigeria, by contrast, Afrobarometer reported in 2022 that only 23% of Nigerians trust INEC. These figures are not mere statistics; they reflect the emotional and psychological distance between Nigerian citizens and their electoral institutions. As Professor Jibrin Ibrahim, a foremost election policy expert, put it: “You can make it illegal not to vote, but you cannot make people believe in an illegitimate process.”
6. The Legal and Logical Contradictions Inherent in the Proposal; Nigerians Have a Constitutional Right, Not a Duty, to Vote: With due respect, Dr. Ubani’s suggestion that a law compelling citizens to vote under threat of a fine is in alignment with good governance principles is a misreading of both democratic theory and constitutional norms. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, provides for the right to vote in Section 77, but does not impose a duty to vote. Section 77(2) provides that “Every citizen of Nigeria, who has attained the age of eighteen years, residing in Nigeria at the time of the registration of voters for purposes of election to a legislative house, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter for that election.” Thus, any law that criminalizes abstention without addressing the causes of disenfranchisement will likely violate the principles of fairness and proportionality. It will also be considered inconsistent with the Constitution itself, which provides in Section 1(3) that “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” Moreover, compulsory voting assumes that refusal to vote is irrational, when in fact, it may be the only peaceful form of protest left to a frustrated electorate. Finally, to equate principled abstention with civic irresponsibility is to criminalize political dissent, because, as the present writer’s humble opinion, refusal to participate in voting is sometimes a form of passive protest by disillusioned citizens.
7. Good Governance Is a Factor In Promoting Voter Participation: Good governance fosters voter participation by creating a political environment rooted in trust, accountability, and inclusion. It builds public confidence in the electoral process, assuring citizens that their votes will lead to meaningful change. By combating corruption, inefficiency, and poor service delivery, good governance reduces voter apathy and cynicism. It ensures free, fair, and credible elections through strong institutions and adherence to the rule of law. Civic education is also enhanced, enabling voters to understand their rights and responsibilities. Furthermore, good governance promotes inclusivity by safeguarding the participation of marginalized groups, including women, youth, and persons with disabilities. Citizens are more likely to vote when they experience tangible benefits from public service delivery and when their civil liberties and political rights, such as freedom of expression and association, are protected. In sum, good governance creates the conditions under which citizens are encouraged and empowered to actively engage in democratic processes, especially voting.
8. Compulsory voting ignores the reality of marginalization and political exclusion: Some Nigerians abstain from voting not out of apathy or irresponsibility, but because they feel alienated from governance from the political system. Members of certain ethnic minorities, religious groups, internally displaced persons, persons with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged citizens often believe that the political process neither represents nor protects their interests. Forcing such individuals to vote without first addressing their exclusion is both unjust and counterproductive. Participation in elections must stem from a sense of empowerment, not coercion. Voting is an expression of trust and agency, not merely a civic obligation. When a citizen chooses not to vote because they feel marginalized, that abstention is itself a political statement, a peaceful form of protest against a system that has failed them. Compulsory voting undermines this agency and suppresses dissent. Asserting that all citizens must vote regardless of their sense of belonging devalues the emotional and psychological dimensions of political participation. Moreover, loyalty and patriotism cannot be compelled through penalties. Dr. Ubani’s proposal of a ₦100,000 fine for non-voters, though framed as a deterrent rather than a punishment, ultimately penalizes non-participation without addressing the deeper social and political fractures that lead to disengagement. This approach risks deepening resentment. True democratic engagement arises when people feel seen, heard, and valued, not when they are fined into compliance. Democratic legitimacy is rooted not in the number of ballots cast, but in the conviction that each vote counts equally and that the system is inclusive. Before mandating participation, the state must first guarantee that all citizens, especially the marginalized, are politically included, adequately represented, and meaningfully protected. Otherwise, compulsory voting becomes a form of symbolic violence against the excluded. In sum, compelling the marginalized to engage in a system from which they feel shut out amounts to victim-blaming. The proper remedy is not coercion, but reform; reform that promotes inclusive governance, equitable representation, and genuine respect for Nigeria’s diverse identities.
9. The Way Forward Is First to Reform, and Then to Engage: Instead of advocating compulsion, Nigerian policymakers, civil society, and electoral stakeholders must focus on restoring confidence in the system. This requires: (i) full enforcement of the Electoral Act 2022, particularly on result transmission; (ii) genuine independence and accountability of INEC; (iii) deployment of technology in all aspects to eliminate human interference at collation levels; (iv) security sector reform to protect voters and polling stations; (v) judicial reforms to enthrone a judiciary that is bold, impartial, and truly committed to justice and fairness; (vi) pragmatic reforms in systems and processes of governance. It’s only after achieving these foundational reforms that we can begin to discuss the merits or otherwise of compulsory voting.
10. Conclusion: Compulsion Without First Enthroning Good Governance And Electoral Credibility Is Tyranny: With due respect, both the Bill on mandatory voting and Dr. Ubani’s support for the Bill are together a case of putting the cart before the horse. Without cleaning up the system to make it both credible and transparent, without restoring public trust by making votes count, and without guaranteeing safety, such a law to compel voting would be nothing more than a punitive instrument wielded against victims of a broken democracy. Femi Falana, SAN, put it aptly: “Until Nigerians are confident that their vote will count, no law, no matter how well-intentioned, can force participation.” This is especially true because you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink muddy water. The answer to our desire for increased participation in elections lies not in threats, fines, or legal compulsion, but in institutional credibility, electoral integrity, and governance that delivers. Let us fix the system before we fix the voter.
11. To be continued.

Respectfully,
§¢µð𝓮̂𝓶𝓮̂𝔃µ𝓮̂
Sylvester Udemezue (udems),
Legal Practitioner, Law Teacher, and the Proctor of The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice [A Public Interest Law Advocacy Group]
08021365545 | 08109024556
[email protected]
(18 May 2025)

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

In March 2006, Uganda’s Supreme Court convened to begin adjudication of the disputes over the presidential election that occurred the previous month in the country. Voting took place on 23 February. Two days later, on 25 February, the Electoral Commission announced the results giving the incumbent, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, 59.28% of the valid votes cast. In second place, with an award of 37.36% of the votes, the Commission announced Kiiza Besigye, a medical doctor whose military career began as part of the bush war that brought Museveni to power 20 years earlier in 1986.

In his petition against the announced result, Col. Besigye argued that the Electoral Commission did not validly declare the results in accordance with the Constitution, and the Presidential Elections Act; and that the election was conducted in contravention of the provisions of both. His evidence was compelling.

Yet, the impression that the petition process was a ritual performance with a predetermined outcome pervaded the process. Leading the legal team for the Electoral Commission of Uganda who were defendants in the petition was Lucian Tibaruha, Solicitor-General of Uganda. In reality, he also led the lawyers for the president, also a defendant alongside the Electoral Commission. Handling election petitions for a party political candidate was not supposed to be part of Lucian’s job, but there he was.

Presiding was Bejamin Josses Odoki, Chief Justice of Uganda since 2001 and the author of the 1995 Constitution that incrementally made Museveni a life president. Idi Amin, Uganda’s infamous military dictator, elevated Odoki to the bench as a 35 year old in 1978. Amin’s nemesis, Museveni, elevated him to the Supreme Court eight years later and made him Chief Justice in 2001.

Announcing its reasoned judgment in January 2007, the court found that there had been non-compliance with the Constitution of Uganda and the applicable laws in the form of “disenfranchisement of voters by deleting their names from the voters register or denying them the right to vote” as well as “in the counting and tallying of results.”

The Court equally found as a fact that the “principle of free and fair elections was compromised by bribery and intimidation or violence in some areas of the country” and also that “the principles of equal suffrage, transparency of the vote, and secrecy of the ballot were undermined by multiple voting, and vote stuffing in some areas.”

Despite these findings, Chief Justice Odoki and his court ruled by a majority of four votes to three of Justices of the Supreme Court of Uganda to uphold the election and grant President Museveni another five years in power. Two years after this decision, in 2009, when the Chief Justice’s son, Phillip Odoki, wedded, Museveni’s son, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba was the best man

In 2010, it emerged that Chief Justice Odoki never harboured any doubts about the outcome. Questioned about the role of judges in deciding elections in Africa, Odoki, “smiled when commenting that to nullify a presidential election would be suicidal.” He lived to see his peers in Kenya and Malawi do just that in 2017 and 2020 respectively. It proved not to be suicidal.

According to former law teacher, Olu Adediran, the role of judges in these kinds of cases is in reality “a compromise between law and political expediency.” Jude Murison is more direct in calling it “judicial politics.” Judges are not instruments of change or revolution and when they are called upon to adjudicate between sides in a political dispute, they are more often than not likely to treat that not as an opportunity to change political paymasters except when the bell has already tolled undisputedly for an incumbent.

Politicians are supposed to sell themselves to the people through their programmes and through campaigns in a contest of both ideas and vision. In return, the people through their votes offer endorsement to the politicians and programmes whom they believe best advance their interests. An electoral commission is a referee supposedly engaged and maintained at the public expense to administer this contest.

This is where things begin to break down. Although engaged in the name of the people, every electoral commission is appointed by people in power who never wish to relinquish it. When a dispute emerges as to the kind of job done by the electoral commission, it ends up before judges. However, the same people who appoint the electoral commission also usually appoint the most senior judges into office. In the maelstrom of party political competition, guardrails break down as politicians struggle to casualise the popular electorate in order to prosper a judicial selectorate. 

The more election disputes end up in court, the more it becomes evident to politicians that it is easier to make deals with the judges. The people are and can be unpredictable, unlike most judges. Increasingly, therefore, politicians seek to judicialize the site of decision-making on elections, relocating that from the polling booth to the courtroom.

If a politician can get their spouse appointed to become a judge, they can even make the site of decision-making in elections more intimate, relocating it from the courtroom to the bedroom.

Instead of the usual soapbox, increasingly elections in many countries can be decided by good old pillow-talk. Former federal legislator, Adamu Bulkachuwa, whose wife, Zainab, headed Nigeria’s Court of Appeal for six years until 2020, published the manual on this model of electoral ascendancy in his parliamentary valedictory remarks as a senator in June 2023.

This is why the judicialization of politics in Africa increasingly represents a huge risk to the popular will as the basis of government. First, it vitiates the right to democratic participation and suppresses the popular will as the foundation for democratic legitimacy. Second, it enables the courts to deprive the people of their democratic rights, accomplishing that under the alluring pretence of rule of law. Third, it provides perverse incentives for politicians to capture the courts, making the judiciary in many African countries a battleground for the pre-determination of election outcomes. Fourth, it has the capacity to alter the character of the judiciary from an independent institution to a plaything of political insiders.

This trend in consigning elections to the care of a judicial selectorate around Africa now endangers judges and their independence. In Malawi, in 2020, the president attempted to remove the Chief Justice in order to secure a Supreme Court panel more solicitous of his interests in the lead-up to a presidential re-run, following a rigged electoral contest that had been struck down by the courts.

The following year in September 2021, the ruling party in Zimbabwe pressured the Constitutional Court to overrule an earlier decision of the High Court that blocked an extension of the tenure of the Chief Justice after he had reached the official retirement age. This allowed the Chief Justice to still serve, but on a contract that made him more subject to presidential whim. Ahead of contentious national elections two years later, the same president decided to advance $400,000 to all serving judges in Zimbabwe in “housing loan” with no repayment obligations. One of the beneficiaries was the chair of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), herself a serving judge. Unsurprisingly, she announced her benefactor, the incumbent president, as winner in the ensuing election.

Even worse, this trend now also endangers entire countries, if not indeed regions. This was evident in April 2020, when Mali’s Constitutional Court overturned the results of 31 parliamentary seats won by the opposition. Its decision to hand these seats over to the ruling party sparked an uprising that led first to the dissolution of the Constitutional Court, and later the overthrow of the government in a military coup.

Mali’s twin crises of governmental legitimacy and state fragmentation is a tragic reminder of the dangers of judicial overreach in election adjudication. But the crisis in Mali has also become a regional crisis for West Africa. To adapt an expression familiar to new-age Pentecostals in West Africa: what judges cannot do does not exist.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

The astronomical rise in banks’ profits, as reflected in the 2024 full year financial report, has exposed the banking industry as a lucrative enterprise powered by arbitrary charges imposed on unwilling customers. In some cases, these inexplicable charges and other unholy electronic deductions leave customers to reel on the throes of pains, with an impact on their blood.

That the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has been penalizing the banks for flouting stipulated guidelines as contained in its “Guide to Charges by Banks, Other Financial, and Non-bank Financial Institutions”, is a confirmation that these banks deliberately use arbitrary and excessive charges to fleece customers, obviously to boost profitability. Since these painful charges constitute part of the big profits made by banks at the expense of customers, they are likened to blood profits. Like blood money, which is obtained at the expense of another’s man’s life, blood profits are earnings gained by banks at the cost of customers’ blood.

In context, blood here refers to the sweat, sacrifice, pains, frustration, and helplessness customers go through when deductions veiled in hidden and arbitrary charges are made on their accounts. In other words, bank earnings are tantamount to blood profits when viewed against the backdrop of resultant pains suffered by helpless customers who bear the brunt of arbitrary charges.

These charges are embedded in crazy debits alerts sent through SMS notifications and emails, and sometimes, they are delivered incoherently, in arrears or at odd hours, perhaps, to shield or distract customers from scrutinizing the alerts. Besides causing general body imbalance, the charges also trigger mood swings and countenance upset among customers, once received.

Some of these crazy charges include, but not limited to commission on turnover, withdrawal fees, transfer charges, electronic money transfer, processing fees, VAT charges, ATM fees, debit or credit cards issuance, replacement or renewal fees, account maintenance fees, NIP transfer charges, SMS alert charges, stamp duty fees, interest charges, SMS VAT charges, hardware token charges, cybersecurity levy, bills payment fees, and other random levies.

Besides, the CBN’s recent introduction of on-site and off-site charges during cash withdrawals at ATM machines, is also unhelpful and inimical to current plight of bank customers, who are now compelled to pay withdrawal fees for use of ATM machines owned by banks other than theirs. But where such transactions are carried out in customers’ own banks, such transactions attract no charges. This introduction is coming on the heels of a fresh increase of SMS alerts charges from N4 to N6 per transaction, further compounding the woes of customers.

Implicitly, these charges constitute a huge burden on the average bank customer who contends daily with depletion in his or her account balances. Corporate customers or businesses are also not spared from these questionable charges that have become a drain on the balance sheet of companies.

With about 312 million active accounts bank-wide as at December 2024, these irrational charges have contributed immensely to the bottom line, occupying a larger space in the profit basket of banks, dislodging loans and foreign exchange sources of profits, which have diminished overtime by high-interest rate regime and prevailing foreign exchange dynamics.

For example, from the 2024 financial year report of just five of the tier 1 banks, the profit growth rose enormously with pre-tax profit hitting N4.56 trillion, approximately 69.5 percent increase compared to N2.69 trillion declared in 2023, while their net profit after tax rose by 66.2 percent in 2024, amounting to N3.78 trillion, as against N2.27 trillion recorded in 2023.

These five tier 1 banks, whose total combined assets in 2024 reached N108.21 trillion, from just N72.80 trillion recorded in 2023, include First Holdco Plc, GTCO Plc, Zenith Bank Plc, UBA Plc, and Stanbic IBTC Holdings Plc.

Specifically, First Holdco grew its profit before tax to N862.39 billion in 2024 from N356.15 recorded in 2023, just as its profit after tax rose to N736.7 billion in 2024 from N308.4 billion it earned in 2023. GTCO on the other hand, grew its pre-tax profit from N609.3 billion in 2023 to N1.27 trillion in 2024, with its net profit rising to N1.02 trillion in 2024 from N529.66 billion made in 2023.

Also, Zenith Bank grew its profit before tax to N1.33 trillion in 2024 from N795.96 billion recorded in 2023, just as its profit after tax rose from N676.9 billion in 2023 to N1.03 trillion in 2024. Similarly, UBA grew its pre-tax profit to N803.72 billion in 2024 from N757.68 billion it recorded in 2023, with its net profit increasing from N607.7 billion in 2023 to N766.6 billion in 2024.

In the same vein, Stanbic IBTC Holdings reported a profit before tax of N303.8 billion in 2024 from N172.91 billion it made in 2023. Its profit after tax rose to N225.3 billion in 2024, compared to N140.62 it recorded in 2023.

With charges as sources of cheap revenue, banks are no longer motivated to embark on constructive and creative efforts in their quest for profit generation. Profits gained from matching of deposit funds against credit lending in consonance with traditional banking are now waning. Perhaps, this explains the drop in the number of banks’ female employees deployed to chase depositors for cheap funds.

Though, lacking ingenuity and industry, use of charges as sources of cheap profits, can make the ordinary businessman to be envious of bank owners. Even Aliko Dangote, as the richest man in Africa, perhaps, may be regretting for allowing his bank, Liberty Merchant Bank, to go under, just like previous bank owners whose banks have closed shop. Their banks might have been sources of value addition to their wealth.

Regrettably, rather than portray the banks in positive light, these colossal profits shunned out by Nigerian banks, are stirring negative public perception about their operational methods, believed generally to be unhelpful to individual and business ventures, particularly, small and medium business enterprises.

The Federal Government and CBN are complicit in this unjustifiable charges and levies. Reason: the Federal Government recently received approximately N84.05 billion from Electronic Money Transfer Levy alone in the first quarter of this year, 2025. This is unhealthy, and a nightmare for the average Nigerian bank customer, who sees it as sheer extortion.

Since the government is a direct beneficiary of these charges, CBN may have been reluctant to exercise strict and regular oversight over the banks on compliance with its guidelines. And this may have unwittingly, encouraged the banks to thrive in unbridled manner, particularly, in “under the table transactions.” These boom and windfall profits would have been near impossible under a sane financial environment typified by global best banking practices.

So, while the banks jubilate for a job well done for full year 2024 financial reports, the real sector and individual customers for which the banks were established to support, groan and suffocate in pains due to business decline and losses suffered, including, in some cases, complete closure of operations and insolvency.

Put differently, the banking system has become a pain in the neck of customers. While customers are experiencing frustrations from incessant debit alerts attributable to subjective and jumbled charges, corporate customers, in addition, also suffer from inability to access simple credits to run businesses, including foreign exchange to settle Letters of Credit.

It is therefore imperative to compel the banks to function appropriately without putting the customers through pains. Gaps created by CBN’s unimpressive efforts at enforcing compliance with rules guiding bank charges, should be filled by various consumer protection agencies for the good of customers.

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) established to protect the interest of consumers should rise to the challenge of banks’ growing quest for abnormal profit through use of arbitrary charges, devoid of empathy for emotional state of customers.

Some of the policies that necessitated the bank charges should be reviewed, so as not to discourage Nigerians from optimizing the services of the banking industry. Failure to do this, could undermine government’s cashless policy, with implication on banks’ total clientele base. Moreso, as the country is still underbanked.

The banks must therefore, wake up, smell the coffee, feel the impulse of customers, and shore up the dwindling integrity and reputation of the banking industry.

■ Dr. Mike Owhoko, Lagos-based public policy analyst, author, and journalist, can be reached at www.mikeowhoko.com and followed on X (formerly Twitter) @michaelowhoko.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.