...
The proposed amendment to Nigeria's Electoral Act 2022 has sparked widespread concern, with many critics labeling it "draconian" due to its potential conflict with fundamental human rights. This analysis focuses on how the bill contravenes international laws Nigeria is a signatory to, particularly concerning freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to participate in public affairs.
Imagine a scenario where citizens are compelled to vote under the threat of imprisonment or fines. This proposed bill raises critical questions about the balance between civic duty and individual liberties. Is it a legitimate measure to boost voter turnout, or an infringement on fundamental rights?
This article examines the legal and ethical implications of the proposed amendment, drawing on international human rights frameworks and expert opinions. We will delve into the specific articles of international law that are potentially violated and discuss why the bill is considered draconian.
Potential Conflicts with International Law
1. Freedom of Expression and Thought
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19: Mirrors Article 19 of the UDHR, providing similar protections. Nigeria is a signatory to the ICCPR.
- Argument: Compulsory voting infringes on freedom of expression. Choosing not to vote can be a form of expressing political disaffection. Forcing someone to vote removes this avenue of expression.
2. Freedom of Association
- ICCPR, Article 22: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests."
- Argument: While primarily addressing the right to form associations, it implies a broader freedom to not associate. In the context of voting, this means the right to disassociate from the political process. Forcing participation infringes on this freedom.
3. Right to Participate in Public Affairs
- ICCPR, Article 25: "Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors."
- Argument: While affirming the right to vote, it emphasizes "freely chosen representatives" and "free expression of the will." Compulsory voting contradicts the "free expression of the will" principle. The right to participate does not mandate the obligation to participate. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has made it clear that restrictions on the right to vote, must be reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. Forcing citizens to vote, is an unreasonable restriction on the right to not participate.
Why the Bill is Considered Draconian
- Punitive Measures: Severe penalties (jail term or fine) are disproportionate to the "offense."
- Lack of Consideration for Individual Circumstances: Ignores legitimate reasons for not voting (illness, travel, religious beliefs).
- Undermining Democratic Principles: True democracy emphasizes freedom of choice. Forcing participation undermines this.
- Enforcement Challenges: Logistically complex and prone to abuse.
While encouraging civic participation is important, forcing it through punitive measures contradicts the fundamental human rights principles of freedom of expression and association, as well as the spirit of free and fair elections. The proposed amendment raises serious concerns about the balance between civic duty and individual liberties.
Add new comment