Reform or Ruin: Lawyers Warn Judiciary Faces Trust Crisis
AS Nigeria begins a new legal year, leading voices in the legal profession have issued a stark warning: unless urgent and sweeping reforms are undertaken, the judiciary risks further collapse of public trust.
Speaking with Daily Independent, three senior lawyers — Victor Opara (SAN), Femi Aborisade, and Kabir Akingbolu — set out an agenda for reform anchored on judicial independence, digital transformation, cheaper access to justice, and integrity in the courts.
Opara described the frequent cases of conflicting judgments and the routine violation of court orders as “seriously damaging to the judiciary’s credibility.” He argued that the only way forward is full digitisation of the courts, with electronic case management systems, online access to rulings, and strict respect for judicial hierarchy.
He also challenged lawyers to play a more active role in ensuring justice for the poor:
“Access to justice must not be the preserve of the wealthy. Lawyers must take up cases for society’s most vulnerable so they too can benefit from the system.”
Aborisade, a respected human rights lawyer, said independence was impossible without financial autonomy. Judges, he argued, must be adequately funded and remunerated to insulate them from executive influence. He emphasised that judges deserve decent housing, healthcare, and education for their families “not as privileges, but as rights,” warning that chronic underfunding makes compromise more likely.
He also criticised the steep filing fees and service charges that lock the poor out of the courts, calling for government-backed waivers and an overhaul of the current cost structure. “Litigants should not be forced to pay bailiffs unofficially before processes are served,” he said. Aborisade further pushed for electronic recording of proceedings in audio and video to strengthen transparency, alongside free online access to judgments with certified seals.
Akingbolu, another rights advocate, blasted the practice of turning courts into “revenue-generating agencies” for governments through exorbitant charges. He noted that fundamental rights enforcement cases now attract nearly the same filing fees as commercial disputes — a situation he called unjust. He also condemned punitive late filing fees, describing daily penalties of ₦1,000 as “outrageous.”
He pressed for wider reforms, including revisiting the death penalty process so that judges, not governors, sign warrants to avoid politicisation and prison overcrowding. He further demanded urgent improvements in court infrastructure, describing many courtrooms as “terrific avenues where people suffer in unbearable heat,” and called for an end to judges writing rulings in longhand.
On technology, Akingbolu urged the judiciary to adopt virtual hearings, electronic notifications, and timely public communication when courts are not sitting, so lawyers do not waste time and resources. He also insisted judges must sit promptly at 9 a.m. and that annual vacations be restructured to avoid unnecessary delays.
Together, Opara, Aborisade, and Akingbolu paint a portrait of a judiciary at a crossroads — weighed down by funding gaps, inefficiency, and rising distrust. Yet they agree on one thing: without decisive reforms in funding, technology, access, and integrity, the justice system risks irrelevance in the eyes of the public it is meant to serve.
