By Lasisi Olagunju

In Yoruba, there is a proverb: “Ojú l’arí, ọ̀rẹ́ ò dé ‘nú” — literally it means ‘we only see the face; friendship does not go deep inside.’ That is the name the Group Managing Director of the NNPCL, Mr Bayo Ojulari, bears. The name calls attention to why appearance and essence sometimes wear different colours. It teaches a lesson in how names, faces and accents may be mere masks — not mirrors.

In Nigeria, the powers of power always wear tribal costumes. Every big position is a sacred grove, only the initiates have its access cards. Kinship confers initiation rights at the grove; free cakes are the benefits. For this and other familial reasons, about a month ago when Ojulari was made the boss of Nigeria’s national oil company, Yoruba people, home and abroad, danced round the world. They thought the NNPC had become their grove.

There is a town called Oke Ode in Ifelodun Local Government Area of Kwara State. Chiefs and youths of that community competed for space in newspapers, on radio and TV with press releases thanking President Bola Tinubu and their own stars for the appointment of Ojulari. They said he was their son in whom they were very well pleased. The chiefs, in particular, added, for effect, that he was “able and capable of bringing the necessary turn-around in NNPC for the benefit of Nigeria and the entire citizenry.”

But the man by himself gave a definition of himself last week. He spoke extensively to BBC Hausa in flawless Hausa language, clearly and purposively choosing and declaring where he belongs. Newspapers did English translations of what he said: “I was surprised when people said I was not from the North. I am a child of the North, and I come from Ilorin. I was brought up in Kaduna State. I started learning Yoruba when I was 15 years old. When I left Kaduna, I went to Zaria to study, so I am a northerner,” he said — and added: “I need the support of the North to do this work well and bring development to the North and the whole of Nigeria…”

What Ojulari said is a culture jolt to Western Nigerians, and I saw it in more than one critical Yoruba circle. It is a reminder that the face is not necessarily the soul. It is also a warning that a name may and may not mirror allegiance or belonging.

Three things I noted in what the man said: That he is from the North is true and the truth; Kwara is geographically north. It appears settled forever, no matter what I may think or feel. That the man is from Ilorin will be declared false by Ilorin, and held to be very untrue by the people of Oke Ode, his father’s hometown. The city he claims, Ilorin, is in Kwara-Central senatorial district; the town that claims him, Oke Ode, is an Igbomina town that sits deep in the savanna of Kwara South. Much more fundamental is this: “I need the support of the North to do this work well and bring development to the North and the whole of Nigeria.” Now, read the last clause of that sentence again. Did you see that ‘the north’ comes first before ‘Nigeria’? So, between the two which one is really his country?

In the pantheon of the gods, some deities are more worthy than others. The North is that deity who stands by you with everything it has. When you have northern Nigeria on your side, you can sleep completely and totally. No ant will dare walk your skin; rodents won’t disturb your rest. Ojulari knew this as a proven fact. He, therefore, desperately wanted the North behind him. And, with that interview, the boss man has owned the North; the North is expected to accept and own him.

I discussed that interview with a big man from the North – a Fulani businessman. I told him that the oil man did not need that ethnic part of the interview. I expected the NNPC boss to know that these are very treacherous, testy, delicate times in Nigeria. Identity in Nigeria is not a buffet; you can’t claim Yoruba before appointment and do cultural code-switching after the swearing in. What define leaders here are the name, language, tribe, religion and geography they wear. And, each of those items has an opposite; the affirmation of one quickly alienates the other.

I believe Ojulari could claim his northernness without posting a disclaimer of his ethnic, linguistic and communal roots. His interview has stomped his feet on the eyes of that part of the earth which calls him son. The language and tone of the interview suggest his mother tongue is a footnote; an afterthought that came after 15 years. His hometown, Oke Ode, did not even feature at all in his story as told by him. I hope his Yoruba is strong enough for him to understand that rain beats one into the same house more than once. He can still make quiet amends.

A lesson: Butterfly gazed at her reflection in a clear pond and said, “These wings are too grand for an insect—I must be a bird! I am a bird!”

Butterfly convinced herself and stopped associating with insects; she opted for the assembly of birds.

In his majesty, the eagle arrived the next meeting of birds. He spotted butterfly and queried her:

“Why are you here?”

Beautiful butterfly replied: “I have wings like you. I fly. This is where I truly belong. I am a bird.”

The eagle smiled, patted butterfly on the back and gently told her: “You are truly beautiful, but you are not of our tribe. You flutter, we glide and soar. The world may keep praising your beauty but you should never let achievement, praise and adulation make you forget who you truly are.”

So, the Hausa-speaking Yorubaman who started learning Yoruba at the age of 15 should listen to the elders when they warn his butterfly never to think itself bird. Achebe’s Ikemefuna called Okonkwo father. We all know how fatal the boy’s run for cover turned out in his ‘father’s’ arms. May be I should kuku read out that part of the story: “As the man who had cleared his throat drew up and raised his matchet, Okonkwo looked away. He heard the blow. The pot fell and broke in the sand. He heard Ikemefuna cry, ‘My father, they have killed me!’, as he ran towards him. Dazed with fear, Okonkwo drew his matchet and cut him down…”

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

By Oseloka H. Obaze

Nigerians rarely take pride in their incumbent leaders. They have good reasons not. As a sixty-five years old nation, Nigeria has never been blessed with a leader, who Nigerians freely elected and loved for his charisma, ideology, vision or disruptive thinking; or for being an unrepentant patriot who imbues a deep sense of patriotism. Nigerians never had a Nelson Mandela, Jerry Rawlings, Julius Nyerere, or Thomas Sankara. We covet being like Singapore, but have never produced a Lee Kuan Yew. The fault is not in the nation’s God endowed destiny, but in those who choose third-rate leaders and their acolytes, who follow such bad leaders blindly.

Our national bane remains bad leadership. We continue to pay for it. Still there’s plentiful evidence that Nigerians are resigned to electing compromise candidates to public offices. In return, they have infinitely paid the high price of such poor leadership. Thus, Nigeria’s perverse politics and associated comeuppance is not so much the fault of the leaders as it is of the followers. Because Nigerians never elect seminal leaders, inefficient governance becomes the norm, as they opt for sectionally preferred leaders, who though they meet the compromise criteria, are hobbled by partisan clientelism.

Nigerian leaders become heroes only after they die. Being leadership heroes and legends in their lifetime is a rarity and that reality is toxic to good governance. These facts impact on our national development and good governance credentials.  Also, our poor governance statecraft has domestic and international implications. Domestically, our youths are being radicalized nationwide. Traveling abroad with a Nigerian passport tells the pathetic story.

As a nation, Nigeria has carved a niche of providing new indices of underdevelopment.  Recently, as the Economist magazine was disclosing that “Nigeria has more people without electricity than any other country” and that “fixing that will be fiendishly difficult,” Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, National Chairman of the ruling All Progressives Alliance (APC), brazenly avowed that there was nothing wrong with Nigeria being a one-party state, since China a one-party state was developmentally well off.  Well, what percentage of the people in China has electricity?  100%. Conversely, our non-salutary story is that the presidency is going off the national electricity grid and resorting to solar power. Was the announcement supposed to be a confidence-building measure? What electricity fate awaits Nigerians? Such dubious and contentious comparison coming from a prominent political leader overlooked a notable corollary: in China corrupt politicians and public officials are executed. Same should be true for Nigeria in order for Ganduje’s comparison to be valid. 

The consequences of Nigeria’s poor governance are sorely felt, when bad leaders make frivolous and tactless comments aimed at blanking out or justifying prevailing ineptitudes. The political opposition has enough arsenals to rubbish the APC government as being apathetic and incompetent. Take for instance our budgetary accounting. There is nothing more emblematic of fuzzy math and corruption, than when we don’t know the barrels of oil we produce daily or quarterly; or how much oil is stolen. On both counts, the figures emanating from the CBN, the Ministry of Finance and NNPC are frequently at variance. Concerning our national deficit, at the close of 2024, the Ministry of Finance had it pegged at N6.6 trillion; the World Bank at N10.5 trillion and the CBN at N14.7 trillion. DMO figures were astronomically higher. The only commonsensical deduction is that as a nation, we are badly leveraged and criminally indebted. Still, we continue borrowing for non-regenerative ventures.

The bucket list of what constitutes good governance is short.  Benchmarks of good governance are also few and easily achievable to provide an elongated value chain of dividends of democracy. Regrettably, as Nigerians, we play politics for the sake of politics, not for the sake of good governance or entrenching true democracy.  Our leadership elite do not play politics as the grounding norm for good governance.  They play politics to belong, to be in the corridors of power and to cash in. 

Good governance is not rocket science.  It will never be. But like democracy, good governance is hard work fostered by discipline. Good governance demands strict respect for the rule of law. So we have to work hard at it in order to fix our politics.  In a presidential system like ours, the separation of powers is imperative. As such, we must resolve to entrust our national interest chores to those with the capacity and commitment to serve.  We must also grasp that the enablers of good governance consists of the leaders, the people and the national institutions.  These are the pivotal operatives. Each has a critical, consistent and resolute role to play. Weak leaders, weak institutions and weak people cannot produce a robust government, society or sustainable development.  To wit, they cannot produce a vibrant democracy. Yet, working together they can be adaptive and transformative. They can orchestrate an orderly and productive society.  

Nigerians are not blind to their leadership challenges. Oddly enough, they are also not averse to holding on doggedly to “blind hope,” which according to the tragedian Aeschylus translates to “we are living and partly living.”  The manifestation of “blind hope” is now a national curse. To paraphrase a public policy interlocutor, “blind hope is a curse to every human, and every nation.” Most Nigerians are living dead or walking dead; thanks to our political rut and rot. Food and physical insecurity are rife. Healthcare delivery is a disaster. To paraphrase Pope Leo XIV, most Nigerians are “fed up with scandals, misused powers,” so much so “they no longer believe, no longer hope, and no longer pray because they think God has left.”  Indeed, most Nigerians believe God already left Nigeria to her own proclivities and detriment; considering the Pandemonium’s Paradise that Nigeria has become.

When Obu Udeozo avers in a poem in his seminal 2021 anthology titled, GOD–Selected Poems, that “…Ministers, governors, and senators of earthly pleasure, harvest copious dividends of unforgiving flames..;” he unfurls the insidiousness of statecraft that our present leaders serve, invest or bequeath on their constituents. Nigerian leaders rank high in the realm, where rhetoric, “prejudiced and loud communication” of failed policies and governance modalities drown out free speech and the aspirations of the “gathering of the voices of the weak who that have no voice.”  Nigerian leaders contrive poverty, hunger, insecurity and death as choice dividends of a presumed democracy. We now also attribute evident maladministration in INEC elections results and JAMB results to “glitches,” despite the respective institutional commitment to “free, fair, and credible electoral process,” and “service and integrity.”

Nigeria ambled into the status of a lawless nation long ago; not because there are no laws, but because there are no consequences for those who break the law regardless of their status.  The alarming adjunct is that our law enforcement institutions -judiciary, police, state security and paramilitary agencies- are all weak. We can now even add the military to that cadre. In its proper context, our unlawful inclinations and becoming a nation of scofflaws can be explained by the epigram in Khalil Gibran’s book, The Prophet, wherein a question was asked: “But what of our laws master? And he answered: You delight in laying down laws. Yet you delight more in breaking them.”  

We have other fault lines. Canvassing for full adherence to the rule of law and due process in a democracy does not consist of rhetoric, sound bites and propaganda. Good governance advocacy must speak to commitment and core values of democracy, complete with the checks and balances and total respect for constitutional dictates. These are anchored by the state’s unfettered service delivery and equal protection for every citizen. Sadly, our leaders gloss over these values. Nepotism has reached a new high. Preferential and discriminatory policies now induce cancel culture.

As we approach the 2027 general elections, we have entered a season of anomy. Defectors and defections are the norm.  Non-subliminal APC Presidential Campaign billboards now glut the nation. President Bola Tinubu’s second term campaign is visibly on. All these violate the extant Electoral Law.  But what does it matter? Financial profligacy is also on the rise. What galls the most is that the present leadership has appropriated the rights of approbation and reprobation. That is not a benchmark of good governance.  Years back, when Nigerians were perceptibly bedeviled by severe austerity due to poor governance, Nigerians protested under the rubric of “Occupy Nigeria.” Now that the economic and security conditions have worsened, all forms of protestation, which ought to be routine, has been muted.  Courage is on high demand. Yet courage has a deserted Nigerians as repression and reprisals manifest. The disunited political opposition seems cowed. Their complacency abets APC’s impunity.  

Some suggest that it’s no longer worth writing; protesting or speaking up o the ills of Nigeria as those in power neither read nor listen. I disagree. We must continue to harp on key national interest issues and challenges. We must also continue to offer possible, probable and plausible solutions. We must continue underlining that good governance is not rocket science. As such, those who can’t lead should get the hell out of the way in the national interest. Let those who can do the job lead for the common good and in the national interest. 

——

Obaze is MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance and management consulting firm in Awka.

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

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.