Prisoner Voting and Nigeria’s Readiness: The Landmines Ahead of INEC

Questions on ethics, human rights, inclusion, state coercion, country sabotage, moral perception, logistics and mental capacity of prisoners are some of the common themes addressed in the arguments presented by rights activists, lawyers, development experts and politicians in this exclusive feature report written by our team.

Giving inmates and prisoners the right to vote can aid in their rehabilitation and give them a sense of inclusion in society, thereby lessening the stigma of incarceration.

Yet, individuals who have committed crimes have violated a social contract and should forfeit the right to participate in the democratic process, as part of their punishments.

Another school of thought posits that allowing prisoners to vote supposedly undermines the judicial system, sending the wrong message about criminal behavior and creating the impression that the state supports bad behavior.

They also think that criminals should not be allowed to vote because their decisions and intentions can no longer be trusted – suggesting that convicts could deliberately sway elections against the interests of society at large, thus posing great risks for society.

Legally, the Nigerian 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees every citizen the right to vote and denying individuals this right based on their status as inmates or prisoners, violates their fundamental human rights as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

But do the pros of inmate voting outweigh the cons considering the fragile public trust in the country’s electoral process? Stakeholders share with The Daily Times team:

Disenfranchisement is an additional punishment 

One of Nigeria’s foremost civil liberty groups, Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) said in a study: “As Nigeria’s electoral system evolves, INEC may need to modify its election management strategy to make it possible for all persons who are eligible to vote at elections to do so…Currently, several categories of persons working on election day and performing election duty are disenfranchised from voting.

These include INEC staff, security personnel and accredited domestic election observers.”

The Executive Director of Global Rights, Abiodun Baiyewu, warned that excluding prison inmates from voting in Nigeria undermines the country’s democratic principles and constitutional guarantees.

She stressed that all eligible citizens, including those in correctional facilities, should have the opportunity to participate in elections.

“Yes, I believe that it is important for inmates in correctional facilities to be afforded an opportunity to vote in elections. Several sections of the constitution guarantee the right of all citizens who have attained voting age to do so. Apart from mental incapacity, there are no buts or ifs (S14(2)(c); S77; S117; S132),” Baiyewu said.

She drew attention to the structure of Nigeria’s correctional system, noting that of the 81,593 inmates nationwide, 53,346, representing over 65 per cent, are awaiting trial.

“Even they are disenfranchised during elections! It is wrong for them to be held indefinitely without trial in the first place, but should you also disenfranchise them before or after they have been proven guilty?

“They are still a part of us, and hopefully, when their terms are over, they will return and be reintegrated back into their communities. They have a right to determine what goes on in the larger society which also affects their treatment as inmates in correctional facilities.

“The perception of inclusion is key in a true democracy. Nigeria must ensure that no segment of society is disenfranchised from voting, whether you are an inmate in a correctional facility, a disabled person, an elderly person or an internally displaced person, we must ensure equal opportunity to exercise our franchise in elections,” she said.

Human rights activist, Deji Adeyanju,  described the denial of voting rights to prison inmates in Nigeria as “an additional punishment” that undermines democratic principles and constitutional guarantees.

He argued that eligible inmates, especially those not convicted of capital offences or with pending appeals, should be allowed to participate in elections.

He noted that in many democracies around the world, prisoners retain their voting rights because incarceration does not extinguish citizenship or the obligations and rights it entails.

“Voting rights is important for prison inmates in Nigeria, particularly those not convicted of capital offences or whose convictions are under appeal, to have the right to vote. Denying inmates this right will amount to an additional punishment and undermines the principle that sovereignty belongs to the people, not just to the free citizens outside prison walls.

Inmate voting is a sign of a maturing democracy

Speaking on the broader impact, Adeyanju said granting voting rights to inmates would show that Nigeria’s democracy is “maturing and moving away from punitive exclusion towards rehabilitative inclusion.”

“In other democracies around the world, inmates vote because citizenship and the obligations and rights it entails are not extinguished by incarceration.”

Adeyanju acknowledged that public perception would be mixed, with some viewing it as rewarding lawbreakers; however, he maintained that if the process is transparent and fair, it could help reduce political disenfranchisement, build trust in electoral institutions, and foster a more civic-minded prison population.

Inmates awaiting trial can legally vote – Lawyers

Lawyers are unanimous in their position that it is unfair and unjust to continue to deny awaiting trial their human rights to perform civic rights to vote in Nigeria during general elections.

Chief  Felix Edewo, a legal practitioner based in Abuja, told Daily Times that it is  unfair,  morally wrong and illegal to deny awaiting trials their human rights to vote. He noted that only persons banned by an order of the court for a certain period should be disallowed from voting.

Augusten Okafor collaborated the position of Edewo and added that the issue of whether awaiting trials in custody can vote had been settled in a decision of Court of Appeal delivered in  2018  that affirmed the right of awaiting-trial inmates to vote in a judgement delivered in 2014 by  the Federal High Court Benin City.

Also speaking, lawyer Pius Ofulue submitted that reasons why awaiting trials are not able to vote during elections lie with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s inability to provide the enabling facilities for awaiting trials to vote.

The fears, the tensions – Disinformation, Warden collusion, Prisoner transfers and  Prison pardon/relief

In his submission, Achimugu Onoja warned, “If (the inmate voting process is) captured by political interests, it could become a dangerous new tool for electoral fraud. The backlash could be severe: public trust in elections (is) already fragile might take another hit and the legitimacy of outcomes could be questioned.”

Onoja’s fears were reiterated by Adegbite Ademola, a political analyst: “The closed environment of a prison could make it a ripe target for political manipulation. Politicians could see inmates as a captive voting bloc, easier to sway than the volatile electorate outside. Vote-buying could be disguised as promises of legal aid, post-release jobs, or even better prison conditions.”

Iorngban Tersugh, a Research and Documentation expert, pointed out that “Collusion with prison officials is another real risk. Unscrupulous wardens could limit ballot access to inmates likely to support certain parties. Transfers of prisoners between facilities which is already common could suddenly have electoral motives, strategically swelling voter numbers in tightly contested constituencies”

According to Tersugh, misinformation could also flourish. Given limited access to diverse media, Tersugh expressed the fear that inmates could be subjected to one sided propaganda without any real chance to fact-check.

For now, the inmates keep listening to their radios, wondering if, come election day, the sound of the ballot box will finally echo through the prison gates.

It’s all good so long the votes count – Political Actors

In his reaction, National Youth Leader of the APC, Dayo Israel stated that constitutional issues should be applied in accordance with the constitution for the good and interest of all.

He said: “I want to stand on the ground that every Nigerian has the right to vote, and should not be disenfranchised, as a fundamental human right. I think that the same rights should be extended to inmates across the country. We should not stand on the premise of fear and not pass a constitutional rule that should be applicable to all.

“We should apply the Four Way Test of the ‘Rotary Club’ that asks, ‘is it good? Is it right? Is it fair to all concerned? and Will it improve our democratic process? If it passes the test, then, they should be able to adopt it. I have no iota of fear about the process.”

For the African Democratic Congress, ADC, stalwart, Abdullahi Musa, the issue of factoring inmates to vote during elections is good, but will the votes count, he queried.

“Well, to me the issue of factoring the inmates to our voting process is a good one. And as you also know, it is not only the inmates that are being considered, the country is also considering the diasporas  to participate in voting during elections.

“However, the concerns and question would be, what impact would their votes make at the election. Would it be for a sense of belonging or it would help to have an impact on the genuineness of elections.

“The focus, to me, should be on how to make the votes of Nigerians count properly, before you look at how to add other Nigerians who are hindered from voting for one reason or the other.

Practical steps to ensure process credibility

On practical measures to ensure credible inmate voting, Baiyewu the rights advocate called for the deployment of election monitors to correctional facilities during polls to observe the process and safeguard fairness.

Baiyewu argued that granting voting rights to inmates would strengthen Nigeria’s democratic culture and promote a sense of inclusion and no segment of society should be denied the opportunity to exercise their franchise.

For activist Adeyanju, he urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to develop a verified prison voters’ register, update it regularly, and exclude inmates who are legally disqualified, such as those under sentence of death.

While stressing the need for proper voter education within correctional facilities to explain the process and secrecy of the ballot, Adeyanju also recommended the deployment of independent observers, including civil society groups and accredited journalists, to monitor the process.

Secure voting stations should be established within facilities and managed directly by INEC officials, rather than prison staff, to reduce the risk of coercion. He further emphasised the importance of ballot security, calling for transparent chain-of-custody protocols from prison polling stations to collation centres to prevent tampering or interference.

According to him, these measures would help safeguard the integrity of the electoral process within correctional institutions.

Conclusion

As laudable as the renewed demands for inmates voting may be, there are daunting challenges the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) would certainly face in carrying out the exercise.

For one, it would have to deploy biometric registration equipment to correctional facilities across the country;  new polling units would have to be created behind high walls and under the watch of state wardens and election officials.

This is because the current system of registration and voting in Nigeria does not allow for voting outside of the polling unit designated to a specific voter’s card, although voters can request for a change of polling unit.

This implies that apart from the presidential election, which every registered voter may participate in regardless of registration and voting location, a voter may only vote to elect the governor/deputy governor, federal and state legislators for the State in which he or she is registered to vote.

These are only some of the high-stakes logistical and legal quagmire that INEC would need to resolve ahead of 2027.