Femi Falana, a renowned Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and human rights activist, has expressed concerns over a bill proposing compulsory voting in elections, stating it infringes on citizens’ freedom as enshrined in the constitution.
Gatekeepers News reports that the bill, sponsored by House of Representatives Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, aims to boost voter turnout and civic engagement by making electoral participation a legal obligation.
The bill proposes a six-month jail term or a fine of N100,000 for eligible voters who fail to participate in elections. According to Abbas, the goal is to tackle low voter turnout and make electoral involvement a mandatory aspect of Nigerian democracy.
However, Falana disagrees with the bill’s premise, arguing that it contradicts the fundamental rights of citizens.
In a statement issued on Monday, Falana said he “doubt that the speaker and his colleagues paid sufficient attention” to the relevant provisions of the 1999 constitution.
“Otherwise, they would have realised that compulsory voting is constitutionally invalid in every material particular on the ground that it is inconsistent with sections 37, 38, 77(2), 135(5) and 178(5) of the constitution,” the human rights lawyer said.
“The said constitutional provisions protect the fundamental rights of the Nigerian people to privacy, freedom of thought and conscience, as well as the freedom to register and vote in national and state elections conducted in Nigeria.”
Citing multiple decided cases, Falana said several courts have interpreted the aforementioned sections of the constitution.
“The fundamental right to freedom of thought and conscience was upheld by the supreme court in the celebrated case of Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v Okonkwo (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt 711) 206,” he said.
“In that case, a patient, Mrs Martha Okorie, and her husband belonged to a religious sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who believe that blood transfusion is contrary to God’s injunction.
“On account of the rejection of blood transfusion, the patient lost her life. Dr Okonkwo, who treated the patient, was convicted of negligent and infamous conduct in a professional respect by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.
“But the supreme court set aside the conviction on the ground that the doctor was right in respecting the fundamental right of the deceased to refuse blood transfusion on the basis of her religious belief.”
Falana quoted Emmanuel Ayoola, a former justice of the supreme court who delivered the judgement, as saying that “the right to privacy implies a right to protect one’s thought, conscience or religious belief and practice from coercive and unjustified intrusion; and, one’s body from unauthorised invasion; the right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion implies a right not to be prevented, without lawful justification, from choosing the course of one’s life, fashioned on what one believes in, and a right not to be coerced into acting contrary to one’s religious belief”.
Falana also cited the supreme court judgment which upheld the rights of Muslims to wear hijab in schools.
The human rights lawyer advised the lower legislative chamber to review the controversial bill “without any further delay”.
“Apart from the possibility that compulsory voting may be declared illegal under the current political dispensation, it is practically impossible to prosecute millions of Nigerian voters who may decide to boycott national and local elections that have been reduced to the periodic renewal of the misgovernance, corruption and abuse of power by the pampered members of the political class,” he said.
Falana charged lawmakers to amend the electoral act to incorporate the recommendations of the Uwais electoral reform panel on the unbundling of the INEC, proportional representation, conclusion of election petitions — before the inauguration of winners of elections and creation of electoral offences commission.
