As Nigeria approaches the final quarter of 2025, the National Assembly is racing against time to conclude and pass critical amendments to the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution. These reforms are expected to lay the legal foundation for the 2027 general elections.
Voting on proposed amendments to the Constitution now looks likely to take place in the last quarter of 2025 – one quarter behind the earlier promised timeline. Both Committees on Constitution Review and Electoral Matters are however working to hold National Public hearing in July ahead of the summer recess.
One of the most contentious aspects of the proposed amendments to the Electoral Act is the newly passed amendment that seeks to criminalize non-participation in elections. While the intent is to boost civic engagement and increase voter turnout, critics argue that this provision infringes on individual freedoms protected by the Constitution.
Section 14(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “the participation of the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.” However, compelling citizens to vote may conflict with the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution. Chapter IV of the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Section 38), freedom of expression (Section 39), and freedom of association (Section 40). The decision to vote—or not to vote—falls squarely within the domain of personal conscience and civic freedom. Criminalizing abstention risks breaching these protected liberties.
Globally, countries that enforce compulsory voting, such as Australia and Belgium, typically include opt-out mechanisms or impose only symbolic fines. Nigeria’s proposal, as it stands, lacks such safeguards, and its enforceability remains questionable.
Efforts to increase voter turnout should focus on removing barriers to participation—such as failure of government to deliver on campaign promises, declining living conditions, security concerns, poor voter education, and logistical failures—not coercion.
As the National Assembly works toward its Q4 2025 deadline for electoral and constitutional reforms, the House of Representatives has shown both legislative activity and pronounced restraint. In a May plenary session, the House rejected at least six constitution amendment bills, including high-profile proposals on the rotation of the presidency among the six geopolitical zones and the removal of INEC’s power to regulate political parties. These rejections, which mostly stemmed from concerns about constitutional conflict, administrative feasibility, or procedural errors, reflect deepening caution within the legislature as it navigates a politically sensitive review process.
The failed bills also included proposals on expanding fiscal oversight at the local level, judicial remuneration, and the establishment of new local government areas. While some of the bills may be reintroduced due to bundling irregularities, the breadth of dismissals signals a legislature hesitant to entertain far-reaching constitutional change. Critics within the chamber argued, for example, that the rotational presidency bill risked entrenching regional divisions and undermining merit-based leadership, despite its stated aim to promote equity.
PLAC welcomes the National Assembly’s commitment to concluding the constitutional and electoral reform process in 2025. However, we urge lawmakers to resist the temptation to prioritize expedience over substance. The reforms must reflect not only a convergence of political interests, but a deeper commitment to constitutional order, public accountability, and participatory governance.