Challenging the Legitimacy of Compulsory Voting in a Flawed Democracy: A critical rejoinder to Dr. Monday Ubani and the National Assembly

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.