A bill proposing mandatory voting in elections for qualified Nigerians has passed the crucial second reading stage at the house of representatives. This development signifies a significant step towards potential changes in Nigeria’s electoral process and could have considerable implications for voter turnout and democratic participation.
The bill, which is sponsored by Tajudeen Abbas, speaker of the house, passed the second reading stage after an extensive debate on Thursday. The fact that the bill is sponsored by the Speaker himself underscores its importance within the House of Representatives and suggests a strong push for its eventual passage into law.
Leading the debate, Daniel Ago, the co-sponsor, said the proposed legislation seeks to amend the Electoral Act 2022 to tackle the problem of low voter turnout. Ago’s emphasis on addressing low voter turnout highlights the core objective of the mandatory voting bill and its potential to reshape electoral engagement in Nigeria.
He said compulsory voting law would increase civic engagement and voter participation, making electoral involvement a legal obligation rather than a personal choice. The argument for mandatory voting centers on the idea that it could lead to a more engaged citizenry and higher participation rates in elections, thereby strengthening Nigeria’s democracy.
Ago said the bill, if passed into law, would strengthen democracy by improving representation, foster a more politically aware country, and reduce vote buying. These potential benefits, as outlined by Ago, suggest that proponents believe mandatory voting could lead to a more robust and less corrupt electoral system in Nigeria.
Benjamin Kalu, the deputy speaker, supported the bill and said adding that citizens are expected to perform certain civic responsibilities. Kalu’s support from a key leadership position within the House further indicates the significance and potential backing for the mandatory voting proposal.
He cited Australia, where voting is compulsory, saying it is a crime not to vote, noting that it has resulted in a stable and inclusive governance in the country. The example of Australia, a country with mandatory voting, is used to illustrate the potential positive impacts on governance and inclusivity.
“In Australia, it is an offence not to vote in any election. There are some incentives that you will be denied for not voting,” he said. Kalu’s reference to penalties and potential denial of incentives in Australia provides a glimpse into the mechanisms that could be considered for enforcing mandatory voting in Nigeria.
Kalu said Nigerians should be part of the decision-making in elections. This statement underscores the fundamental democratic principle that mandatory voting aims to uphold – ensuring broader participation in shaping the country’s leadership and direction.
Awaji-Inombek Abiante, a People’s Democratic Party (PDP) member from Rivers state, said there are no incentives for citizens to support a compulsory voting law. Abiante’s dissenting voice raises a crucial question about the motivation and potential resistance to making voting obligatory in Nigeria.
Abiante referenced Kalu’s argument, asking what incentives citizens would be denied if they do not vote. This specific question challenges the practical implementation and potential consequences of a mandatory voting system in the Nigerian context.
“What are the incentives that would be denied to citizens?” he asked. “Voting should be free,” Abiante added. Abiante’s concern about potential penalties and his assertion that “voting should be free” represent key arguments against mandatory participation in elections.
Abiante also expressed concerns about the voter register, saying, “It is not clean”. This highlights a critical underlying issue – the integrity of the electoral roll – which some argue needs to be addressed before considering mandatory voting.
“Who will provide the logistics for Nigerians abroad to come home and vote?” Abiante asked. This practical question points to the significant logistical challenges of implementing mandatory voting for Nigerians living outside the country.
But Abbas responded, noting that there are some exceptions in specific laws. Abbas’s acknowledgment of potential exceptions suggests that the bill may consider certain circumstances under which voting might not be compulsory.
Mark Esset, a lawmaker from Akwa Ibom state, who also rejected the bill, said the house should not enact a compulsory voting law when citizens have “lost confidence” in voting process. Esset’s opposition is based on the argument that addressing the lack of trust in the electoral system should precede any move towards mandatory voting.
“It is a good bill, but we are trying to build something on nothing. While we want to make voting compulsory, there should also be a law to make voting count,” he said. Esset emphasizes the importance of ensuring the credibility and impact of votes as a prerequisite for mandatory participation.
While lawmakers were opposing the bill, Kalu consistently interrupted them, citing order 9, demanding that they confine their argument to the rules of the debate. This procedural intervention during the debate highlights the tensions and differing viewpoints surrounding the mandatory voting proposal within the House.
Abbas had to correct him, clarifying that the debates were in line with the bill’s general principles. The Speaker’s intervention suggests an effort to ensure a fair and comprehensive discussion of the bill’s merits and drawbacks.
When the speaker called for a voice vote on the bill, the “ayes” were louder than the “nays”. The outcome of this voice vote indicates that the bill has significant support within the House of Representatives as it moves to the next legislative stage.
