Faith Chiazor is Research Director to the Office of the Senator Representing Delta-North at the National Assembly, Nigeria’s Federal Parliament, and an IDS alum of MA Gender & Development (2023–2024). In this blog post, she draws on her dissertation research into barriers to women’s political representation in Nigeria, a country with one of the starkest disparities between men’s and women’s participation in electoral politics in the world.
Women’s political underrepresentation constitutes a critical democratic deficit in any society. In Nigeria, although women constitute nearly half of the population, they occupy less than 5% of seats in the federal parliament. At the subnational level, representation is equally limited, with only 54 women holding positions across 990 seats in State Houses of Assembly, and 15 states having no female legislators at all.
Reflecting this imbalance, the IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union) 2023 ranks Nigeria among the ten lowest countries worldwide in women’s representation in national parliaments and the WEF 2025 Global Gender Gap Report ranks Nigeria 143rd out of 144 countries in women’s political participation.
Successive governments have acknowledged this imbalance. The Revised National Gender Policy (2021-2026) adopted the 35% affirmative action target, aligning with international frameworks such as the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women). Yet progress has not followed policy. Although the 2019 and 2023 general elections recorded an increase in the number of women contesting political office, this participation did not translate into representation.
As the numbers declined and institutional responses lagged, mobilisation intensified. In the face of legislative delays, bureaucratic bottlenecks, and entrenched patriarchal narratives that continue to shape Nigeria’s political sphere, women’s groups renewed calls for the enactment of the Reserved Seats Bill.
Misunderstood or misrepresented? A debate on reform, resistance and rhetoric
The bill passed its second reading in July 2024. However, debates during the second reading exposed significant gaps in how lawmakers interpreted the proposal. Some argued that reserving seats was not the appropriate solution, suggesting instead that efforts should focus on encouraging more women to participate in politics.
Yet research consistently shows that Nigerian women do not suffer from a participation deficit. Women are central to grassroots mobilization and constitute over half of the voting population during elections. The issue, therefore, is not participation but representation. Women participate extensively, yet systemic barriers prevent that participation from translating into elected office. When representation does not follow participation, political apathy deepens. Against this backdrop, calls to merely “encourage” participation risk overlooking structural constraints embedded within candidate selection processes, party hierarchies, campaign financing, and electoral competition.
Also, during the second reading, opposing lawmakers, including Billy Osawaru and Patrick Umoh, described the bill as discriminatory against men, undemocratic, and a proposal intended to displace male candidates. Other critics characterised it as unconstitutional, symbolic, inequitable, or a political handout. These critiques often reflect either a misreading of the bill’s provisions or a strategic reframing of its intent.
The proposal is a constitutional amendment. It creates additional seats to be contested through competitive elections and does not cap women’s participation. Its temporary design is intended to expand descriptive representation while allowing broader structural reform to take root.
At the same time, it would be overly simplistic to attribute all resistance to ignorance alone. The pattern of debate suggests a mixture of genuine misunderstanding and deeper institutional reluctance to disrupt established power structures. In competitive political environments where incumbency and patronage networks dominate, redistributive reforms often encounter resistance framed in procedural or merit-based language – for example, arguments that such reforms violate established democratic procedures or that political office should be determined through individual merit rather than institutional measures designed to correct structural inequalities. Reserved seats are not designed to lower standards, but rather to widen access in a system that has historically restricted entry.
Moreover, public awareness and civic education are crucial to clarifying the bill’s provisions and objectives, as improved understanding can help reshape public discourse, reduce rhetorical distortions such as claims that the bill would automatically appoint women or unfairly displace male candidates, and help strengthen informed legislative engagement.
At a political crossroads – The push, the pause, and the pressure
As the 2027 general elections approach, Nigerian women face the possibility of entering another electoral cycle without meaningful gains in political representation. This has intensified calls to accelerate what many view as a slow-moving legislative process so that the Reserved Seats Bill can be operationalised before the next election cycle. The bill has sparked one of the largest mobilisations for gender-inclusive political reform in Nigeria’s recent democratic history, securing over one million documented citizen endorsements. This mobilisation has extended beyond petitions to digital campaigns, constituent engagement with lawmakers, nationwide demonstrations, elite support, and sustained advocacy efforts.
The most recent wave of protests occurred in February 2026 and reflected cross-party collaboration across multiple fronts. For example, organisations including the National Women Leaders Forum of Political Parties and the International Federation of Women Lawyers Nigeria organised press briefings urging expedited legislative action, while the Women in Leadership Advancement Network coordinated advocacy campaigns. Demonstrations took place at the National Assembly (Nigeria’s federal parliament) and across several states. In response, legislative representatives reiterated their commitment to addressing women’s underrepresentation. However, commitment without corresponding legislative progression continues to expose the gap between assurances and institutional outcomes. This gap extends to executive-level commitments. During his campaign, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu pledged to increase women’s participation in governance to at least 35% across appointments and public offices. To date, these commitments have not translated into binding legislative reform.
It is noteworthy that this mobilisation is rooted in the recognition of the broader democratic and developmental implications of sustained exclusion. Persistent underrepresentation weakens democratic legitimacy and constrains policy responsiveness. Research links gender-inclusive governance with stronger institutional performance and improved development outcomes. The World Bank and UN Women also note that increased women’s participation in political decision-making correlates with enhanced policy effectiveness and inclusive growth. Similarly, global economic analysis associates advancing women’s leadership with stronger GDP performance and resilient economies. Thus, the debate over the Reserved Seats Bill concerns institutional design, democratic legitimacy, and long-term national development.
From commitment to enactment – breaking the cycle
Sustained mobilisation has clarified an underlying structural question: how can women’s political participation be translated into representation within formal institutions? The challenge lies in access to competitive electoral pathways.
Rhetorical commitments to gender equality cannot substitute for institutional reform. When barriers embedded in candidate selection processes and campaign financing remain intact, participation alone cannot correct imbalance. Addressing this gap requires deliberate and enforceable mechanisms. The Reserved Seats Bill represents one such institutional response. Through creating additional, contested legislative seats, it seeks to expand descriptive representation without displacing existing democratic competition. Its temporary design attempts to recalibrate access within a system shaped by incumbency advantage and entrenched patronage networks.
As 2027 approaches, the question is whether institutional design will allow participation to translate into representation. The credibility of Nigeria’s 35% affirmative action commitment depends on enforceable reform rather than discretionary implementation. Ultimately, the debate over reserved seats is about democratic legitimacy, institutional accountability, and the capacity of political systems to respond to persistent structural imbalance.
If Nigeria is to uphold its constitutional and policy commitments to gender inclusion, the moment calls not for further assurances, but for decisive legislative action that aligns democratic principle with institutional practice.
Faith Chiazor pursued an MA in Gender & Development at the Institute of Development Studies. For more information about this degree, please click below:
