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
