Enhancing the Efficiency of the Nigerian Justice Systems Through Procedural Reform

The judiciary remains the final refuge for the ordinary citizen, being the arm of government that people rely on to defend their rights and liberties. This paper draws attention to the urgent need for procedural changes within Nigeria’s justice system, stressing the importance of making it more efficient and responsive. It also sets out thoughtful recommendations on how these much-needed improvements can be achieved.

Introduction

Procedural reform encompasses enacting new laws, amending certain laws, and taking necessary steps to make the justice system efficient for litigants. The importance of procedural reform can never be overemphasised as it contributes towards achieving the basic objectives of a justice system: expedient trial, access to justice, and hearing cases on their merit for a virile administration of justice.

Procedural Challenges and the Need for Reform

The heart of this article revolves around enhancing the justice system through procedural reforms. Nigeria’s legal landscape is sluggish and inefficient with replete cases at the backlog not heard on their merits or not even heard at all.¹ Dating back to the legal year of 2010/2011, there were still 1400 cases left to be adjudicated before the Supreme Court as reported by Dahiru Musdapher CJN (as he then was)². Imagine the number of cases that have been lingering in courts since 2010/2011 to date. There are numerous reasons behind the inefficiency and inexpediency of the Nigerian justice system, such as poor case management, unnecessary adjournment, unmeritorious appeals, and inadequate court facilities, defeating its basic aims and objectives, which have brought about some challenges in the justice system. The challenges include:

1. SLOW DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE: So far, dispensation of justice is not as expedient as it ought to be. Some cases take years in court to reach their conclusion. Some litigants get older than their cases, some die before the matter comes to an end. An example is the case of Adisa v Oyinwola,³ the matter was instituted in 1982 at the trial court, and the final judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court in 2000. The original plaintiff died before the matter was partially brought to an end at the Supreme Court because an order of retrial was made by the Supreme Court after 18 years of wasting time and resources of the court and the litigants involved in that case. Such issues make the judiciary lose its credence and make Nigerian citizens choose other ways to resolve their disputes rather than going to court.

2. TECHNICALITIES: Some matters brought before the court do not get heard on their merit due to technicalities envisaged in our substantive and procedural laws. Courts should hear matters based on merit and not cling to technicalities. An apposite example of a case where justice was slaughtered at the altar of technicalities is the case of APC V MACHINA⁴ . The Apex court set aside the decision of the court of appeal and trial court solely on the grounds of procedural technicality because the respondent used the wrong mode of commencing the action at the trial court. Now the question is that, is a mode of commencement of an action more pivotal than the plinth of a litigant’s grievance? I think not. People repose confidence in the judiciary and when they see cases being dismissed on what appear to be trivial grounds, it creates a perception that the courts have been compromised.

Having highlighted some challenges, it’s pertinent to implement procedural reform to ensure that people’s rights are safeguarded and also get the justice they deserve, save cost, and also save the precious time of the court and have an enhanced justice system. Machina case was struck out, now imagine if he elects to relist it, it is going to cost a lot of time and resources

Recommendations

This writer hopes that the following practical recommendations will be considered.

1. LIMITING CERTAIN MATTERS TO BE SETTLED OUT OF COURT:((Wright: procedural reform and it limitation 1667)) It has been envisaged at the beginning of this work that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man, which makes the court approachable by litigants to bring matters before it. however, some cases are frivolous and to some extent, they need no intervention of the court, these are cases that can be settled by alternative dispute resolution(ADR). Taking matters to court, which can be easily solved using ADR mechanisms, wastes the precious time of the court, which the court should have used to settle more serious matters. To jettison things of such nature, it is the humble opinion of this writer that a law should be made setting out some matters that should strictly be settled out of court. Should such issues end in a deadlock in resort to alternative dispute resolution, then the matters should be taken to court. E.g. family issues, issues arising from neighbours, real estate issues, issues relating to tort (claims for accident)⁵

2. EFFECTIVE CASE MANAGEMENT AND DILIGENT PROSECUTION: The filing and management of cases should be diligently carried out. This assertion is made to ensure that lawyers representing their clients carry out their work effectively and obey court rules so that judges can decide cases on their merit.

3. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE: Judges should lean towards substantial justice rather than technical justice. I humbly adopt the words of Learned Justice NIKKI TOBI JSC (as he then was) in the case of OMOJU V FRN⁶ where he said and I quote: “Courts of law have long moved away from the domain or terrain of doing technical justice to doing substantial justice. This is because technical justice, in reality, is not justice but a caricature of it. It is justice in inverted commas and not justice synonymous with the principles of equity and fair play”.

Technical justice is a charade and a facade of substantial justice. Substantial justice is actual and concrete justice; it is justice personified and secreted in the elbows of cordial and fair jurisprudence with a human face and understanding. This writer humbly submits that courts of law should enjoin substantial justice and eschew technical justice to make the justice system efficient and expedient.

4. REASONABLE ADJOURNMENT: In practice today, adjournment is used as a delaying tactic by some lawyers⁷ It is humbly submitted that adjournment should only be granted bona fide and in

instances where the adjournment is necessary for the merit of the case to reduce the workload on judges and pave the way for issues in controversy to be heard once and for all.

5. IMPROVING COURTROOM FACILITIES: Another important measure to be implemented towards attaining a procedural reform to enhance the justice system is to improve courtroom facilities for judges by way of automation. This has to do with a technological instrument recording the entire proceeding so that judges would not have to write judgments with their hands. The number of cases entertained by judges daily in court is determined by their level of stress and convenience. It is therefore pertinent that the court should be very conducive for judges, and technological instruments should be used to enhance proceedings.

Conclusion

An enhanced justice system is pivotal to a nation’s procedural law stability and efficiency for its citizens to navigate through to protect and enforce their rights. The need for procedural reform as recommended if put in place will no doubt enhance the justice system in Nigeria.

---

About Author

Uzayr Abdulwahab is 300 level law student from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. And a Senior state counsel in the department of justice of Law students association of Nigeria. 

1. OAL Nigeria’s court procedural landscape is sluggish and inefficient and needs Reform 2 All Nigeria Judges’ Conference, Abuja. [↩]
2. All Judges’ Conference Abuja [↩]
3. Adisa v. Oyinwola (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 116 SC 4 APC V MACHINA SC/CV/1689/2022 [↩]
4. APC V MACHINA SC/CV/1689/2022 [↩]
5. Alcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24 7 Omoju v. F.R.N. (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 38 SC [↩]
6. Omoju v. F.R.N (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1085) 38 SC [↩]
7. A. Manuf. Ind. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Akiyode [2000] 13 NWLR CA [↩]