Justice is not only about reaching the right decision; it is also about reaching that decision within a reasonable time. In Nigeria, however, prolonged litigation has become one of the most persistent challenges facing the justice system.
Cases that should ordinarily be resolved within a reasonable period can remain in court for years, sometimes stretching beyond a decade. Criminal defendants may spend prolonged periods in custody awaiting trial, while civil and commercial disputes can be slowed by repeated adjournments, interlocutory appeals and procedural objections. For ordinary citizens, the cost of pursuing justice can eventually become greater than the value of the claim itself.
This reality sits uneasily with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), particularly Section 36(1), which guarantees a person’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The research paper, “Expediting Justice in Nigeria: Legal and Institutional Reforms for Timely Adjudication,” examines why this constitutional promise remains difficult to achieve and identifies reforms capable of making justice delivery faster, more accessible and more effective.
The Challenge of Judicial Delay
The problem of delay in Nigeria’s courts is not attributable to a single factor. It is the product of several interconnected legal, institutional and structural weaknesses.
Heavy caseloads, inadequate numbers of judges and insufficient court personnel contribute significantly to case backlogs. Poor infrastructure, inadequate funding and limited technological capacity further constrain the ability of courts to process cases efficiently.
Procedural practices also play an important role. Repeated adjournments, preliminary objections and interlocutory appeals can keep cases away from substantive determination for extended periods. In some instances, the appellate process itself becomes a source of delay when parties challenge procedural decisions before the main case can proceed.
Criminal justice presents an additional concern. Despite reforms designed to reduce unnecessary remand and accelerate criminal trials, prolonged pre-trial detention remains a significant challenge. The consequences extend beyond the individual accused: overcrowded custodial facilities, increased public expenditure and delayed resolution of criminal cases all place additional pressure on the justice system.
The research therefore presents judicial delay not as a narrow administrative inconvenience but as an issue with constitutional, social and economic consequences.
Constitutional and Legislative Foundations for Timely Justice
Nigeria already has an important legal foundation for addressing judicial delay.
Section 36(1) of the Constitution guarantees fair hearing within a reasonable time, giving timeliness a constitutional dimension. The Constitution also protects personal liberty and human dignity, rights that are particularly relevant to prolonged pre-trial detention. In addition, constitutional provisions on judicial financial independence provide the basis for adequately resourcing the judiciary.
Several legislative and procedural reforms have attempted to translate these constitutional guarantees into practice.
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 introduced important measures intended to accelerate criminal proceedings. These include limits on remand, day-to-day trial requirements where practicable, plea bargaining and measures relating to arrest and bail procedures. The research notes, however, that the impact of the Act has been constrained by uneven implementation, inadequate funding, technological limitations and institutional challenges.
The Supreme Court Rules 2024 represent another significant step towards improving judicial efficiency. The Rules introduced electronic filing and virtual hearings and shortened several procedural timelines. Among other changes, the period for transmitting records of appeal was reduced from six months to three months, while the time for filing briefs was also shortened.
The Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 has similarly strengthened Nigeria’s alternative dispute resolution framework. By modernising the country’s arbitration regime and reducing opportunities for unnecessary judicial intervention, the Act seeks to make arbitration and mediation more effective mechanisms for resolving disputes outside prolonged court proceedings.
Visit our eLibrary to access the full report and explore more research publications
What the Courts Have Held
Nigerian courts have, over the years, recognised that justice must be both fair and timely.
In Ariori v Elemo (1983), the Supreme Court emphasised the fundamental importance of fair hearing. In Kalu v The State (1998), the Court recognised that inordinate delay in criminal proceedings could raise constitutional fair-hearing concerns.
The courts have also repeatedly expressed concern about unnecessary adjournments. In Newswatch Communications Ltd v Atta (2006), the Supreme Court stressed the responsibility of courts to prevent litigants from using adjournments as instruments of delay. Similarly, Ezomo v AG Bendel State (1986) affirmed the court’s duty to proceed with cases despite deliberate attempts by a party to frustrate their progress.
These decisions demonstrate that the legal system already contains principles capable of supporting faster adjudication. The continuing challenge is ensuring that those principles are consistently applied and supported by effective institutions.
Lessons from Other Jurisdictions
The research examines judicial reform experiences in the United Kingdom, India, Singapore, Rwanda and South Africa, identifying approaches that could inform Nigeria’s reform efforts.
The United Kingdom’s Civil Procedure Rules 1998, developed following Lord Woolf’s Access to Justice reforms, placed greater emphasis on active judicial case management, proportionality and differentiated procedural tracks. The model demonstrates how judges can take greater control of proceedings and discourage unnecessary procedural disputes.
India has responded to its enormous case backlog through measures including Fast Track Courts and community-based dispute resolution mechanisms. These approaches illustrate the potential of specialised and alternative forums to reduce pressure on conventional courts.
Singapore’s integrated case management system demonstrates how technology can support judicial efficiency. Electronic filing, automated alerts, case tracking and digital records allow courts to monitor cases from filing to disposal.
Rwanda’s experience, particularly the Gacaca community justice system established after the 1994 genocide, illustrates how alternative and community-based mechanisms can be deployed to deal with exceptionally large volumes of cases.
South Africa, meanwhile, provides examples of specialised courts and structured case-management systems, including approaches relevant to constitutional and commercial litigation.
The lesson for Nigeria is not that any one foreign model should be copied wholesale. Rather, the experiences demonstrate that sustained judicial reform requires clear rules, effective case management, adequate resources, technology and institutional commitment.
Key Findings
The research identifies several major findings.
- First, the continuing length of judicial proceedings raises serious concerns about compliance with the constitutional requirement that cases be determined within a reasonable time. The gap between constitutional guarantees and the experience of many litigants remains significant.
- Second, interlocutory appeals and procedural applications are identified as major sources of delay, particularly where they prevent substantive proceedings from continuing.
- Third, while the ACJA 2015 represents an important legislative achievement, its effectiveness has been limited by gaps in implementation, inadequate institutional capacity and resource constraints.
- Fourth, underfunding remains a structural challenge. The research links inadequate judicial resources to shortcomings in infrastructure, staffing, technology and judicial welfare.
- Fifth, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) remains under-utilised. Multi-Door Courthouse initiatives demonstrate the potential of mediation, conciliation and other ADR mechanisms to resolve disputes more quickly, but these mechanisms are not yet sufficiently widespread or integrated into the formal justice system.
- Finally, technology can significantly improve court efficiency, but technology alone cannot solve the problem. Electronic filing, virtual hearings and digital case management must be accompanied by reliable electricity, internet connectivity, appropriate equipment and trained personnel.
A Reform Agenda for Timely Justice
The paper proposes a comprehensive reform programme built around legislative, institutional, technological, ADR and capacity-building measures.
At the legislative level, it proposes strengthening the constitutional framework for judicial funding, reviewing the rules governing interlocutory appeals and developing more comprehensive standards for civil case management. It also recommends further harmonisation and implementation of the ACJA.
Institutionally, the paper proposes the establishment of a National Court Administration Agency to handle non-judicial administrative responsibilities such as case scheduling, registry management, staff training and technology deployment. It also recommends expanding specialised courts for areas such as commercial, intellectual property and environmental disputes.
Judicial performance and welfare are equally important. The research proposes transparent performance assessment based on factors including case clearance, timeliness of judgments and compliance with procedural requirements, alongside improved welfare for judicial officers.
Technology should form another major pillar of reform. A National E-Judiciary Programme is proposed to provide integrated electronic filing, electronic service of processes, virtual hearings, digital case management and online access to court records. Such a programme, the research stresses, must be accompanied by investment in electricity, internet connectivity and hardware.
The paper further recommends expanding ADR through mandatory referral for selected categories of disputes, including certain family, commercial, landlord-and-tenant and community land matters. It also calls for the expansion of Multi-Door Courthouses to state capitals and greater public awareness of ADR mechanisms.
Finally, continuous judicial education should be strengthened. The National Judicial Institute is identified as having an important role in providing regular training in case management, technology, constitutional rights and international best practices.
Conclusion
Nigeria does not lack the legal foundations for a more efficient justice system. The Constitution provides a right to fair hearing within a reasonable time, while legislation such as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023, together with the Supreme Court Rules 2024, provide important reform building blocks.
The central challenge is implementation.
Reducing judicial delay requires coordinated action by the legislature, judiciary and executive. It requires adequate and predictable funding, modern infrastructure, effective case management, responsible use of appellate procedures, wider access to ADR, digital transformation and continuous investment in judicial personnel.
The research concludes that timely justice should not be understood as being in conflict with quality justice. Rather, timeliness and quality are complementary elements of effective justice delivery.
For Nigeria, therefore, expediting justice is not simply an administrative objective. It is central to the protection of constitutional rights, public confidence in the judiciary, economic activity and the rule of law. The task ahead is to strengthen and implement the reforms already underway while addressing the structural weaknesses that continue to make delay a defining feature of litigation.
The goal should be a justice system in which a person’s right to have a dispute determined within a reasonable time is not merely a constitutional promise, but a practical reality.
Adapted from the National Assembly Library research report, “Expediting Justice in Nigeria: Legal and Institutional Reforms for Timely Adjudication” by Manasoko Rimdam, Sulaiman Dalha Othman, Sadiq Yusuf Manu, Grace Akinwumi, Patience Aligube and Aishatu Salihu Bakari (30 April 2026)
Visit our eLibrary to access the full report and explore more research publications
