PATRICK WEMAMBU
English philosopher, ethicist, metaphysician and scientist, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is most famously associated with the term ‘Leviathan.’ Deployed as the title of his most influential work published in 1651, the concept articulates a political philosophy that views government primarily as a device for ensuring collective security.
According to Hobbes, political authority is justified by a hypothetical social contract among the citizenry that vests in a sovereign (a monarch, a legislature or almost any other form of authority) the responsibility for the safety and well-being of all.
In the book, Hobbes uses the nomenclature under review to represent the state, an absolute sovereign and a social contract.
For the purpose of this discourse, however, Nigeria’s 10th National Assembly will be cited as a case study of the concept in question which is a collosus – great and mighty.
Let us interrogate yet another key principle. Charles Robert Darwin (1809 – 1882) – an English naturalist, geologist and biologist, was widely known for his contributions to evolutionary biology. His proposition that all species of life descended from a common ancestor is now generally accepted and considered a fundamental scientific concept.
In a joint presentation with Alfred Russel Wallace, he introduced his scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process he called natural selection. This is exemplified in the struggle for existence which has a similar effect to the artificial selection process involved in selective breeding.
Darwinism, therefore, describes the broad concepts of evolution and natural selection as originally proposed by Charles Darwin. In essence, this core principle states that variations within species are heritable and that individuals with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and pass on those traits to their offspring.
What then is Darwinistic proclivity? Simply put, it refers to a natural tendency or inclination towards Darwin’s theories. Particularly, it suggests an understanding and acceptance of the principles that life has developed over time through random genetic variation and natural selection, where individuals best suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce.
Having a Darwinistic proclivity, thus, implies a natural inclination to understand, accept and one might add propagate the principles of evolution by natural selection, as described by Darwin.
Now, drawing parallels between Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan Concept and Charles Darwin’s Evolution Theory while relating these to our treatise may not be a walk in the park.
Notwithstanding, the analogy to be drawn in explaining the aforementioned somewhat complex scientific concept is that the Nigerian parliament – especially the Green Chamber would appear to possess the characteristic features of a behemoth Leviathan armed with Darwinistic proclivity.
Juxtapose the controversial Bill before the House of Representatives proposing to make voting mandatory for all eligible Nigerians against the backdrop of the abstract of this essay and you might fully grasp the implications of the study.
Writing in The PUNCH Newspaper of 25th May 2025, under the caption ‘Compulsory Voting: A Cure For Apathy Or Threat,’ Olufemi Adeniran reminisced that the Bill, first introduced in February was sponsored by the Speaker of the House, Tajudeen Abbas. It was presented on May 20 (2025) by co-sponsor Daniel Asama, representing Bassa/Jos North Federal Constituency of Plateau State, for a second reading. The legislation seeks to amend the Electoral Act 2022 to make voting in all national, state, and local council elections compulsory for all eligible Nigerians.
Said Adeniran; “The bill proposes a six-month imprisonment or a fine of not more than N100,000 for any registered voter convicted of failing to exercise his or her franchise during polls.
“Other key objectives of the bill include: establishing a legal framework with sanctions for unjustified non-participation and valid exemptions for illness, religious objections, or foreign residency; empowering the Independent National Electoral Commission to track voter compliance and manage exemptions without infringing on fundamental rights; and promoting electoral education to deepen democratic participation.”
If signed into law, Nigeria is expected to join countries like Australia, Belgium, and Brazil, which have adopted compulsory voting with positive outcomes in political participation and public accountability.
Why propose making voting compulsory in Nigeria? An analysis of the data obtained from INEC in the PUNCH publication showed that voter turnout has been declining almost every election year since 2007.
In 1999, 29.8 million Nigerians voted in the presidential election that brought President Olusegun Obasanjo to office. But the country recorded its highest turnout in 2003, when 39 million people, representing 69.1 per cent of registered voters, participated in the election. Since then, the turnout has been on a downward trend.
Buttressing the figures, we are told that in 2007, 35 million Nigerians, representing 57.5 per cent of the registered voters, cast their ballots, while the 2011 elections witnessed 38.2 million (53.68 per cent) participation. During the 2015 elections, 28.6 million voters (43.65 per cent) cast their votes, while the figure dropped to 27.3 million (34.75 per cent) in 2019.
The 2023 election is said to have witnessed the lowest participation of Nigerians during general elections, with only 24.9 million, representing 26.71 per cent of the registered voters, participating in the election.
The writer further observed that the rise in voter registration has not led to a corresponding increase in voter turnout. While voter registration has continued to increase, turnout has been abysmal.
According to INEC data provided, there are 93,469,008 registered voters in the country, but only 87,209,007, representing 93.3 per cent, collected their Permanent Voter Cards.
Since its proposal, the bill has generated controversy among politicians, legal experts, and civil society organisations. At the centre of the controversy is a constitutional dilemma: can a right be turned into a legal obligation?
Describing it as an unconstitutional affront to civil liberties and democratic values, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has unequivocally condemned the proposed bill seeking to amend the Electoral Act 2022 to make voting compulsory for all eligible Nigerians,
In a statement issued by the body May 20, 2025 titled ‘You Cannot Jail a Citizen for Choosing Silence: The Nigerian Bar Association Condemns Compulsory Voting Bill as Unconstitutional and Draconian’ and signed by its President, Mazi Adam Osigwe, SAN – the NBA
viewed the bill, which prescribes sanctions including fines of up to ₦100,000 or imprisonment for failure to vote, as not only regressive but wholly inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
Said Osigwe; “Section 39 (1) of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to silence, dissent, and abstention. In a democracy, the right to vote is a civil liberty, not a legal obligation. Compelling citizens to vote through coercive legal measures violates the fundamental right of Nigerians to decide whether or not to participate in elections.
“Also, Section 40 guarantees the right to freedom of association, which includes the right not to associate. In the same spirit, compelling an individual to vote, regardless of their faith in the electoral process or options presented, amounts to a violation of their personal convictions and political freedoms.
“The NBA finds it unacceptable that a democratic government would seek to criminalize non-participation in an electoral process marred by voter apathy, mistrust, insecurity, and systemic failures. Instead of fixing the conditions that discourage voter turnout, such as electoral violence, vote buying, among others, the state is attempting to force participation through punitive legislation.”
Observing that democracy is not sustained by coercion but thrives on consent, participation, and trust – we are told the moment citizens are forced to vote under the threat of imprisonment, the entire essence of free and fair elections collapses.
If passed, this bill would set a dangerous constitutional precedent: that the government can punish citizens for refusing to participate in its processes, the statement warned – adding that the door will be opened to further erosions of civil liberties and legitimizes authoritarian impulses under the guise of electoral reform.
“The NBA calls on the National Assembly to immediately discontinue any legislative process advancing this unconstitutional and anti-democratic bill. Nigeria’s democracy does not need coercion; it needs trust, transparency, accountability, and inclusive reforms.
“Rather than punish non-voters, government and political actors must focus on rebuilding the integrity of the electoral system, ensuring security on election days, guaranteeing the independence of the electoral umpire, and conducting voter education to inspire confidence in democratic participation,” Osigwe concluded.
Perhaps it is pertinent to note that in defending the bill, Daniel Asama who co-sponsored it had asserted that if passed into law, the proposed legislation would bolster democratic engagement by compelling Nigerians of voting age to participate in national and state elections. “Voting transcends a mere right; it constitutes a civic duty, a principle upheld in numerous democracies globally,” the lawmaker had said.
He lamented the alarming trend of low voter turnout, citing the 2023 general elections where less than 30 per cent of registered voters cast their ballots. “This trend undermines the legitimacy of elected governments and weakens democratic institutions,” he warned.
The lawmaker argued that mandatory voting would cultivate a stronger sense of civic responsibility.
In rounding off, therefore, it should be clear that compelling any Nigerian citizen to vote under threat of prosecution will present dire consequences. This is moreso in this renewed age of human activism. Any attempt to enforce this will meet with stiff opposition. The Honourable Members, therefore, may wish to take a second look at the provisions of the proposed piece of legislation which has been variously described as draconian and seeking to weaponize civic participation against the people.
PATRICK WEMAMBU, is Ag. Editor, The Daily Times Newspaper. He can be reached through p.wemambu@ dailytimesng.com
