Analysis Of Accelerated Digitalisation Of The Nigerian Judiciary

A PAPER PRESENTED BY PROFESSOR ABIODUN AMUDA-KANNIKE SAN, FCArb, FCE, LFWLS, FCIAP, FIIHP, ACTI, ACSP, JP; AG DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (DLSS) OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE AND DEMOCRATIC STUDIES (NILDS) ABUJA, AND PIONEER DEAN, FACULTY OF LAW, KWARA STATE UNIVERSITY MALETE VIA ILORIN, AT THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, ORGANIZED BY CIVIC ENLIGHTENMENT ORGANIZATION OF NIGERIA (CEON) ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTE (NJI) OF NIGERIA FOR JUDICIARY WHICH TOOK PLACE AT MERCURE DUBAI GOLD DISTRICT HOTEL, DUBAI, UAE, BETWEEN MONDAY, 28TH SEPTEMBER – FRIDAY, 2ND OCTOBER, 2026.

Presenter’s Email: amudakannikeabiodun@gmail.com

This paper analysed the digitalisation of the Nigerian judiciary as a mechanism for reforming the administration of justice. It argues that while technology offers significant opportunities to address persistent challenges of delay, case backlog, administrative inefficiency, inadequate access to judicial information and fragmented law reporting, the success of digitalisation should be measured not by the number of electronic platforms introduced but by whether it produces a judiciary that is faster, more accessible, more transparent, more predictable and more effective, while preserving judicial independence, fair hearing and the integrity of adjudication. The paper adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, analysing constitutional provisions, statutory frameworks, judicial policies, practice directions and academic commentary. The key findings reveal that Nigeria’s judicial digitalisation remains uneven across Federal and State judiciaries, that the COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst for virtual proceedings but exposed infrastructural and legal weaknesses, and that fragmented implementation risks creating technological inequality and interoperability problems. The paper recommends the development of national standards for interoperability, the establishment of an authoritative and searchable digital law reporting repository, the implementation of comprehensive cybersecurity and data protection frameworks, continuous judicial education on emerging technologies, and the adoption of a hybrid justice system in which physical and digital processes complement one another.

Keywords: Administration of justice, digital law reporting, judicial digitalisation, National Judicial Council, Nigerian judiciary, virtual hearings.

1. INTRODUCTION

The administration of justice is a fundamental pillar of democratic governance. It provides the institutional mechanism through which disputes are resolved, rights and obligations are determined, governmental power is subjected to law, and the rule of law is maintained. In Nigeria, the judicial powers of the Federation and the States are constitutionally vested in the courts, with the courts exercising jurisdiction over matters affecting the civil rights and obligations of persons.[1] The effectiveness of these constitutional functions depends not merely upon the existence of courts, but upon the capacity of the justice system to deliver decisions that are timely, accessible, fair, reasoned and enforceable. Thus, judicial independence, access to justice and the efficient administration of justice are complementary requirements of a functioning constitutional democracy.[2]

The significance of an effective judiciary has assumed greater importance in an increasingly globalised and technologically interconnected world. Nations now compete not only through the strength of their natural resources, financial systems and industrial capacity, but also through the quality and reliability of their institutions. An effective justice system contributes to legal certainty, enforcement of contractual and property rights, resolution of commercial disputes and public confidence in the rule of law. Conversely, delay, excessive cost, procedural inefficiency and uncertainty in the administration of justice may increase transaction costs and undermine confidence in the legal environment within which economic activities are undertaken. The judiciary should therefore be viewed not merely as an adjudicatory institution, but as an essential component of the institutional infrastructure required for sustainable national development.[3]

The traditional processes through which courts administer justice, however, are increasingly being tested by technological advancement. Digital technologies have altered the manner in which information is generated, stored, transmitted and accessed and have consequently produced new categories of disputes and evidentiary questions for courts to determine. At the same time, those technologies offer significant opportunities for the judiciary itself. Electronic filing, electronic service, digital case management, virtual hearings, electronic records, online access to judgments, digital law reporting and technology-assisted legal research can potentially reduce administrative bottlenecks, improve access to judicial information and facilitate more efficient management of cases. The National Judicial Council’s National Judicial Policy has itself recognised the importance of information and communication technology, including electronic and digital recording and transcription, and calls for judicial officers and court staff to receive appropriate training in its use.[4]

The challenge, therefore, is not simply whether technology should be introduced into the Nigerian judiciary, but whether its adoption can be accelerated and integrated in a manner that produces measurable improvements in the administration of justice. This distinction is important because the mere conversion of a paper process into an electronic process does not necessarily make the underlying judicial system more efficient. Digitalisation may reproduce existing inefficiencies where obsolete procedures, fragmented institutional structures, inadequate infrastructure or insufficient human capacity remain unchanged. Indeed, Nigeria’s experience demonstrates that the development of digital judicial initiatives has not been uniform across the Federal and State judiciaries, while some areas of judicial administration remain substantially dependent upon conventional processes.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a particularly compelling demonstration of both the vulnerability of traditional court processes and the possibilities offered by technology. Restrictions on physical movement and gatherings disrupted conventional court operations and compelled the judiciary to explore remote and virtual means of conducting proceedings. The National Judicial Council consequently directed that virtual court sittings should be encouraged during the pandemic and that judgments, rulings and directions could, where appropriate, be delivered remotely.[5] The experience demonstrated that technology could enable the wheels of justice to continue turning when physical attendance at court was severely constrained. More importantly, it created an opportunity to move beyond emergency responses towards a deliberate and sustainable digital transformation of judicial administration.

Accelerated digitalisation is particularly relevant to Nigeria because the judiciary continues to confront longstanding challenges, including delay in the disposal of cases, congested cause lists, administrative inefficiencies, inadequate access to judicial information and weaknesses in the management and reporting of judicial decisions.[6] These problems have implications beyond individual cases. In a common-law legal system in which judicial precedent occupies an important position, timely and reliable access to decisions of superior and coordinate courts is essential to consistency, predictability and the development of the law. An effective digital law-reporting infrastructure can therefore serve not merely as an information resource, but as an important component of the administration of justice itself.

This paper argues that accelerated digitalisation offers Nigeria a significant opportunity to reform the administration of justice, but that its success should not be measured by the number of electronic platforms introduced or the extent to which physical documents are replaced with electronic ones. The appropriate measure is whether digitalisation produces a judiciary that is faster, more accessible, more transparent, more predictable and more effective, while preserving judicial independence, fair hearing and the integrity of adjudication. The paper accordingly examines the conceptual and institutional dimensions of judicial digitalisation, the existing challenges within Nigeria’s justice system, the impact of COVID-19, the opportunities and risks presented by emerging technologies, and the institutional and policy measures required to achieve an integrated and sustainable digital judiciary.

2. CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION

The concept of digitalisation of the judiciary must first be situated within the broader concept of the administration of justice. The two concepts are related but not synonymous.

• Judiciary/Administration of Justice

The judiciary refers principally to the constitutionally established courts and judicial officers vested with judicial power, whereas the administration of justice encompasses the wider institutional processes through which disputes are brought before the courts, adjudicated and concluded.[7] It therefore includes the work of judges and magistrates as well as the activities of registries, court administrators, litigants, legal practitioners and other personnel and institutions whose functions facilitate the determination and enforcement of judicial decisions. The distinction is significant because technological intervention directed exclusively at adjudication, without corresponding reform of court administration and supporting processes, may have only a limited effect on the overall efficiency of justice delivery.[8]

• Judicial Efficiency

Efficiency in the administration of justice requires an appropriate balance between speed, quality, accessibility, fairness and cost.[9] A judicial system that disposes of cases rapidly at the expense of fair hearing, adequate consideration of evidence or properly reasoned decisions cannot properly be described as efficient. The constitutional guarantee of fair hearing consequently places an important qualification upon any attempt to accelerate judicial proceedings.[10] The objective of digitalisation should therefore be to eliminate avoidable administrative and procedural delays while preserving the essential safeguards of adjudication.

The familiar maxim that justice delayed is justice denied captures the importance of timeliness in the administration of justice. Delay may impose substantial financial and emotional costs on litigants, prolong uncertainty and, in appropriate circumstances, undermine confidence in the judicial process.[11] The problem is particularly acute where delays arise not from the complexity of the dispute but from avoidable administrative practices such as difficulties in filing processes, retrieval of records, service of processes, scheduling of proceedings and access to previous decisions.

• Digitisation/Digitalisation

Digitisation ordinarily refers to the conversion of information from a physical or analogue format into a digital format.[12] For example, scanning a paper court record into an electronic document. Digitalisation refers to the process of applying digital technology to improve or redesign an existing process, such as replacing physical filing with an electronic filing system.[13] For the judiciary, this distinction is important. An electronic copy of a paper file does not, by itself, constitute a digitally transformed court. A genuinely digital judiciary requires interconnected systems through which filing, payment, service, case management, proceedings, records, judgments, enforcement and law reporting can operate in an integrated manner.

The distinction also explains why the mere introduction of technological platforms should not be treated as proof of judicial efficiency. Where an electronic filing system merely reproduces cumbersome manual procedures, or where a judgment is uploaded online long after it was delivered, the technological intervention may have produced digitisation without achieving meaningful digitalisation. The ultimate question must therefore be whether technology improves the outcome and quality of judicial administration. This approach is consistent with the National Judicial Policy, which does not merely contemplate the acquisition of ICT equipment but calls for the integration of information technology systems into the Federal and State judiciaries and mandatory training of judicial officers in their application, including electronic and digital recording and transcription of proceedings and processes.[14] Digitalisation should accordingly be understood in this paper as the systematic application and integration of digital technologies into judicial and court-administration processes for the purpose of improving the accessibility, timeliness, efficiency, transparency, reliability and quality of justice delivery. This definition deliberately places the institutional objective before the technology. Technology is the means; effective administration of justice is the end.

3. GLOBALISATION, TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY

Globalisation has progressively altered the environment within which national judicial institutions operate.[15] Economic transactions, investments, commercial relationships and the movement of information increasingly transcend territorial boundaries, thereby placing a premium on legal systems capable of providing timely, predictable and effective dispute resolution.[16] A judiciary that is accessible, independent and efficient contributes to confidence in the enforcement of contracts and protection of property and other legal rights, while prolonged delays and uncertainty may increase transaction costs and discourage investment. The relationship between judicial effectiveness and economic development has consequently received increasing attention in contemporary justice-sector reform. The World Bank, for example, identifies access to justice, efficiency and quality as the principal dimensions through which judicial effectiveness may be assessed, and recognises effective justice institutions as important to investment, economic activity and public confidence.[17]

This development has important implications for Nigeria. The competitiveness of a national economy is not determined exclusively by fiscal incentives, natural resources or physical infrastructure. The reliability of the institutions through which commercial and civil rights are enforced is equally significant.[18] Businesses require confidence that contractual obligations will be enforced, disputes will be resolved within a reasonable period and judicial decisions will be sufficiently predictable to permit rational economic planning. An inefficient justice system may therefore operate as an indirect cost upon economic activity. Recent World Bank analysis observes that court efficiency is associated with economic growth and that delays in resolving disputes can constrain entrepreneurship, investment and market development.[19] Accordingly, judicial digitalisation should be regarded not merely as an internal concern of the legal profession, but as part of the broader institutional framework for national development.

Technology has intensified this relationship. The digital economy has generated forms of commercial activity and social interaction that operate with a speed and geographical reach that conventional legal processes were not originally designed to accommodate. Transactions may be concluded electronically between parties in different jurisdictions; digital assets may be transferred without conventional physical intermediaries; personal and commercial information may be stored in foreign jurisdictions; and communications capable of becoming evidence may be created and transmitted instantaneously. Courts are consequently required to determine questions concerning electronic records, digital evidence, data protection, cybercrime, online transactions, intellectual property in digital environments and other technologically mediated disputes. The modern judiciary must therefore understand technology not only as an administrative instrument but also as an increasingly important subject of adjudication.

This necessitates a dual responsibility for the judiciary. First, courts must possess the legal and technical capacity to adjudicate disputes generated by technological advancement.[20] Secondly, the judiciary must itself adopt appropriate technologies to improve the manner in which justice is administered. The National Judicial Policy recognises this second responsibility by requiring the Federal and State judiciaries to encourage the use of information and communication technology, equip judicial bodies with appropriate information technology systems and provide judicial officers with training in their use, including electronic and digital recording and transcription of proceedings.[21]

The implications extend beyond the courtroom. In a common-law jurisdiction such as Nigeria, access to judicial decisions is particularly important because the doctrine of judicial precedent requires courts to give appropriate effect to binding decisions of superior courts. Reliable and timely law reporting is consequently an essential component of judicial administration.[22] Where decisions are difficult to obtain, poorly indexed or published after considerable delay, lawyers and judges may face unnecessary difficulties in identifying applicable authorities. Digital law reporting offers the possibility of maintaining comprehensive, searchable and promptly updated databases of judicial decisions, thereby improving legal research and contributing to consistency and predictability in adjudication.[23]

The changing technological environment also challenges traditional assumptions concerning the geographical and temporal boundaries of judicial proceedings. Physical presence, paper records and in-person communication have historically constituted important features of court administration.[24] Digital technologies permit documents to be filed, transmitted and accessed remotely; proceedings may, where legally permissible and procedurally appropriate, be conducted virtually; and records can be stored and retrieved electronically. These possibilities do not mean that physical courts or personal appearances have become obsolete. Rather, they provide additional mechanisms through which judicial resources can be deployed more efficiently and access to justice can be expanded.

Globalisation and technological advancement have thus transformed the environment in which the Nigerian judiciary operates. The modern court must be sufficiently responsive to disputes generated by an increasingly digital economy while simultaneously exploiting technology to improve its own processes. The challenge for Nigeria is to achieve this transformation without sacrificing the fundamental values such as independence, impartiality, fair hearing, reasoned adjudication and equal access to the courts that distinguish the administration of justice. Accelerated digitalisation should consequently be understood as an instrument for strengthening these values.

4. THE NIGERIAN JUDICIAL ARCHITECTURE AND THE DIGITALISATION CHALLENGE

Nigeria’s judicial architecture is necessarily relevant to any discussion of accelerated digitalisation because the country does not operate a single, centrally administered judicial system. The Constitution establishes judicial institutions at both the Federal and State levels, with judicial power vested in the courts identified under section 6 of the Constitution.[25] The Federal judicial structure includes the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Federal High Court, National Industrial Court and others. Each State maintains its own judicial institutions within the constitutional framework. The result is a plural institutional structure in which judicial administration is undertaken across different jurisdictions with varying degrees of institutional capacity, resources and technological preparedness.

The existence of this structure does not mean that the different judiciaries operate without coordination. The National Judicial Council (NJC), established under section 153 of the Constitution, performs important functions in relation to judicial administration, including recommending persons for specified judicial appointments, exercising disciplinary functions and dealing with matters relating to policy and administration within the scope assigned to it by the Constitution.[26] The NJC’s constitutional position is particularly important to digitalisation because the Council’s National Judicial Policy expressly recognises technology as an element of judicial reform and calls upon both Federal and State judiciaries to encourage the use of information and communication technology, equip judicial bodies with appropriate information technology systems and train judicial officers in their application.[27] The constitutional role of the NJC should, however, not be misunderstood as creating a completely uniform judicial administration throughout the Federation. The Federal and State judiciaries retain distinct institutional structures and operate within different administrative and resource environments. The NJC itself recognises that adequate funding, particularly at the State level, together with appropriate infrastructure and ICT equipment, is necessary for efficient justice delivery.[28] This has significant consequences for digitalisation. Where the availability of reliable electricity, broadband connectivity, hardware, software, technical personnel and funding varies from one jurisdiction to another, the capacity to implement and sustain digital judicial systems will inevitably vary as well.

This creates one of the principal challenges of accelerated digitalisation in Nigeria: the risk of technological unevenness within a constitutionally interconnected justice system. Some Federal courts and a number of State judiciaries have introduced or experimented with electronic filing, case management, virtual proceedings and other digital processes, while other jurisdictions remain substantially dependent upon paper-based systems. The result is not simply a difference in technological sophistication. It may affect the practical ability of litigants and lawyers to access justice, file processes, obtain information about cases and retrieve judicial decisions depending upon the jurisdiction in which their disputes arise.

The fragmented nature of judicial digitalisation also creates an interoperability problem. If different courts adopt incompatible platforms, standards and databases, the benefits of digitalisation may remain confined within individual institutions. A truly effective digital justice system requires the ability to exchange information securely across relevant judicial institutions. This is particularly important for appellate litigation and judicial precedent. A judgment of a superior court that is digitally accessible, properly indexed and capable of being searched by judges and legal practitioners can contribute to consistency in adjudication.[29] Conversely, an isolated digital platform that does not communicate with other judicial databases may merely create another repository without solving the underlying problem of access to judicial information. The challenge is therefore to reconcile institutional diversity with technological interoperability. Nigeria does not necessarily require every court to use an identical platform or operate in exactly the same manner. It does, however, require common minimum standards for electronic filing, records management, authentication, cybersecurity, data exchange, law reporting and access to judgments. The National Judicial Policy already provides a basis for greater technological coordination by directing Federal and State courts, as far as practicable, to predicate and integrate their information technology systems on the Judicial Information Technology Policy when adopted. [30]What is required is the effective implementation and continuous updating of such a coordinated approach.

Another dimension of the problem concerns the relationship between digitalisation and judicial performance. The NJC’s policy framework does not treat technology as an isolated intervention. It links ICT with case-flow management, case tracking, judicial performance, court management and the speedy disposal of cases.[31] This is significant because the ultimate purpose of digitalisation should be to improve judicial outcomes. An electronic filing platform that does not reduce filing delays, a virtual hearing system that does not reduce unnecessary adjournments, or an electronic database that does not improve access to precedent may represent technological adoption without meaningful institutional transformation.

5. COVID-19 AND THE ACCELERATION OF JUDICIAL DIGITALISATION

The COVID-19 pandemic constituted a defining moment in the development of digital justice in Nigeria. Even before the pandemic, the Nigerian judiciary had already recognised the potential of information and communication technology to improve judicial administration, but the predominant model of court operation remained substantially dependent upon physical attendance, paper processes and conventional registry procedures.[32] The outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 exposed the vulnerability of that model.[33] Following the declaration of the pandemic and the imposition of restrictions on movement and public gatherings, the National Judicial Council (NJC) directed the suspension of court sittings from 24 March 2020, except for matters considered urgent, essential or time-bound.[34] The suspension was subsequently extended in view of the lockdown measures imposed by the Federal and State Governments.[35]

The disruption was particularly significant because the administration of justice is ordinarily expected to operate continuously. The suspension of ordinary physical proceedings created the possibility that litigants whose rights required judicial protection would be left without an effective forum for their claims. It also demonstrated that the conventional assumption that the administration of justice necessarily requires the physical presence of judges, lawyers, litigants and court officials could become an obstacle to justice in exceptional circumstances. The pandemic therefore transformed judicial digitalisation from a desirable reform into an immediate institutional necessity.

The response of the Nigerian judiciary was to explore the use of technology to maintain the functioning of the courts. In May 2020, the NJC issued Guidelines for Court Sittings and Related Matters in the COVID-19 Period. The Guidelines applied to the Federal and State judiciaries and expressly provided for virtual or remote court sittings. They encouraged courts to conduct matters remotely where appropriate, permitted judgments, rulings and directions to be delivered through remote proceedings, and contemplated the gradual experimentation with the taking of evidence virtually.[36] The Guidelines also provided for electronic service through email, WhatsApp and SMS in appropriate circumstances, subject to the applicable statutory rules governing service.[37]

The technological requirements specified by the NJC’s Guidelines revealed both the possibilities and the limitations of digital justice in Nigeria. Virtual proceedings required reliable internet connectivity, suitable end-user devices, collaborative software platforms and adequate electricity supply.[38] These requirements demonstrate that digitalisation of the judiciary cannot be treated as a purely legal or technological project. It is also an infrastructure project. Where judges, lawyers or litigants lack reliable electricity, broadband connectivity or appropriate devices, the availability of a virtual hearing platform does not necessarily translate into meaningful access to justice. Indeed, the Guidelines expressly recognised the poor state of power and communication infrastructure in some parts of the country and directed courts to take such limitations into account.[39]

The pandemic nevertheless produced several important institutional innovations. The NJC Guidelines contemplated the electronic transmission of processes, virtual hearings, electronic recording of proceedings and online publication of information concerning remote hearings.[40] These measures represented a significant departure from the traditional dependence upon physical courtrooms and paper-based communication. They also demonstrated that technology could be deployed not merely as an administrative convenience but as an instrument for maintaining the constitutional function of adjudication during a period when conventional court operations were severely constrained.

The experience also revealed that virtual justice raises legal and procedural questions that cannot be resolved merely by installing technological platforms. Questions concerning the constitutional requirement of public hearings, fair hearing, authentication of electronic processes, taking and assessment of evidence, confidentiality, recording of proceedings and the appropriate relationship between virtual proceedings and existing Rules of Court became increasingly important. Academic commentary following the pandemic has accordingly examined both the practical benefits and legal difficulties associated with virtual proceedings in Nigeria.[41] The lesson is that accelerated digitalisation must be accompanied by corresponding development of procedural rules, judicial practice directions and professional capacity.

The pandemic should therefore not be regarded merely as a historical episode that temporarily compelled the judiciary to use technology. It should be understood as a proof of concept for digital judicial transformation. It demonstrated that certain judicial processes can be conducted remotely, that electronic communication can supplement conventional service and filing arrangements, and that technology can enable the judiciary to remain operational when physical access to court premises is restricted. At the same time, it exposed the infrastructural, legal and institutional weaknesses that could limit the effectiveness of digital justice if they are not systematically addressed. The post-COVID challenge is consequently to move from emergency digitalisation to institutional digital transformation. The objective should not be to conduct every judicial proceeding virtually or to eliminate physical courts. Rather, digital technology should be deployed selectively and intelligently where it improves efficiency without compromising fair hearing, open justice, judicial independence or the integrity of adjudication. Routine administrative processes, filing, payment, case tracking, access to records, scheduling, delivery and dissemination of judgments and law reporting may offer particularly strong opportunities for digitalisation, while the suitability of virtual determination of evidentiary matters should continue to depend upon the nature of the case and applicable procedural safeguards.

The COVID-19 experience therefore provides an important foundation for Nigeria’s current digitalisation agenda. It demonstrated the resilience that technology can bring to the administration of justice, but equally exposed the dangers of attempting digital transformation without adequate infrastructure, legal frameworks and human capacity. The principal lesson is that accelerated digitalisation requires a deliberate transition from isolated emergency measures to a coherent, sustainable and measurable digital judicial system.

6. THE PRESENT CHALLENGES OF THE NIGERIAN JUDICIARY

The case for accelerated digitalisation of the Nigerian judiciary must be considered against the longstanding institutional and procedural difficulties confronting the administration of justice. These difficulties are not exclusively technological and cannot, therefore, be solved merely by introducing electronic platforms. They include delay in the determination of cases, accumulation of case backlogs, inadequate infrastructure, inefficient case management, difficulties in maintaining and transmitting court records, limited access to judicial information and weaknesses in law reporting.[42] The National Judicial Council (NJC) itself identifies delay in justice delivery, inadequate resources and the need for effective case-flow management among the persistent concerns requiring judicial reform.[43] The Council’s policy framework consequently requires each Judiciary to develop strategies for clearing civil cases pending for more than three years and criminal cases pending for more than eighteen months, while also requiring periodic assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the judicial system.[44]

• Delay and Backlog of Cases

Delay remains one of the most significant challenges to effective justice delivery.[45] The NJC’s monitoring of corruption and financial-crime cases, for example, has identified several causes of delay, including repeated adjournments, absence of counsel or parties, retirement or transfer of judges, re-assignment of cases requiring proceedings to commence afresh, non-compliance with procedural rules and cumbersome transmission of records to appellate courts.[46] This is important because it demonstrates that judicial delay is a systemic problem involving judges, lawyers, litigants, registries, prosecuting authorities and other institutions within the justice sector.

Digitalisation can address some, but not all, of these causes. Electronic case management can assist in monitoring the progress of cases, identifying inactive matters and generating information concerning judicial workloads. Electronic transmission of records can potentially reduce the delay associated with the physical movement of files between trial and appellate courts. Automated scheduling and electronic notifications can also reduce administrative delays. The technology, however, cannot prevent a litigant from seeking an adjournment, replace an absent judicial officer or resolve a substantive procedural dispute. Digitalisation should therefore be regarded as a case-management and institutional efficiency tool, rather than a substitute for broader procedural and judicial reforms.

• Manual and Paper-Dependent Processes

A related difficulty is the continued dependence upon physical documents and manual administrative processes in significant aspects of court operations. Paper-based filing, physical movement of case files, manual retrieval of records and conventional methods of communicating with parties can consume considerable administrative time and create opportunities for misplaced, damaged or incomplete records. The NJC’s own identification of inadequate record-keeping and the cumbersome transmission of records as factors contributing to delay demonstrates the practical consequences of inefficient information management.[47]

This is an area in which digitalisation offers particularly direct benefits. Properly designed electronic case-management systems can create a digital trail from the commencement of a proceeding to judgment and, where necessary, appeal and enforcement. Electronic records can be searched, copied, transmitted and backed up more efficiently than physical files. They can also provide authorised users with simultaneous access to information without requiring the physical movement of a single court file. The benefits, however, depend upon reliable systems for data integrity, authentication, cybersecurity, backup and controlled access.

• Inadequate Infrastructure and Resources

Digitalisation of the judiciary requires more than computers and software. Reliable electricity, broadband connectivity, secure networks, suitable court facilities, technical personnel and sustainable funding are essential to the operation of digital judicial systems.[48] The National Judicial Policy recognises inadequate resources as a continuing concern and calls for courts to be adequately equipped and for ICT to be promoted throughout the judiciary.[49] The problem is particularly significant where technological adoption differs considerably among jurisdictions.

This creates the risk that accelerated digitalisation may unintentionally deepen inequality within the justice system. A litigant appearing before a technologically advanced court may have access to electronic filing, online case information and virtual proceedings, while another litigant in a less-developed jurisdiction may continue to depend almost entirely upon physical processes. Digitalisation must therefore be accompanied by deliberate investment in infrastructure, particularly in jurisdictions and locations where technological capacity is weakest.

• Access to Justice

The administration of justice is meaningful only when persons whose rights or obligations are affected can practically access the courts.[50] Distance, cost, procedural complexity and limited information may constitute significant barriers to such access. Digitalisation can reduce some of these barriers by permitting remote access to filing systems, court information, judgments and other judicial services. It may also reduce the frequency with which lawyers and litigants are required to travel to court for purely administrative purposes.

There is, however, a corresponding danger in assuming that every litigant is digitally equipped. Poor connectivity, the cost of internet access, lack of digital literacy and inadequate access to suitable devices can exclude persons who are already disadvantaged. The NJC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recognised this problem by requiring courts to take account of limitations in power and communication infrastructure, particularly in underserved areas.[51] Accelerated digitalisation should therefore adopt an inclusive model, in which digital access is expanded without immediately eliminating appropriate physical or assisted alternatives.

• Inadequate Access to Judicial Decisions and Law Reporting

Perhaps one of the most consequential but less frequently discussed challenges is access to judicial decisions. In a common-law legal system, judicial decisions constitute an important source of law and the doctrine of precedent requires lower courts to follow applicable decisions of superior courts.[52] The practical operation of precedent therefore depends upon judges and legal practitioners being able to identify, obtain and verify relevant authorities. The problem is not simply the absence of reported cases. It also concerns the speed, completeness, reliability, indexing and accessibility of the available reports. Where judgments are not promptly and systematically published, the ability of judges and practitioners to ascertain the current state of the law is diminished. This may contribute to unnecessary disagreement, inconsistent reasoning or inadvertent failure to identify relevant binding authority. Recent Nigerian scholarship has specifically identified inadequate access to legal precedents as one of the factors contributing to conflicting judicial decisions and has advocated a centralised national legal database as part of the institutional response.[53]

Digitalisation provides an obvious opportunity to address this weakness. A properly designed national judicial database could provide authenticated judgments, searchable by court, judge, subject, citation, date and relevant statutory provisions. Such a database would assist judges and lawyers in legal research while improving the accessibility of Nigerian jurisprudence. It could also facilitate the development of a more coherent body of precedent by ensuring that decisions of superior and coordinate courts are promptly available to those who need to apply them.

• Conflicting Judicial Decisions and Legal Certainty

The concern regarding conflicting decisions requires careful treatment. Not every difference between judicial decisions represents a defect in the administration of justice. Courts are entitled to distinguish cases on their facts, reconsider earlier approaches where legally permissible and develop the law through reasoned adjudication.[54] The difficulty arises where materially similar questions receive conflicting treatment without adequate doctrinal justification, particularly where a lower court fails to follow a binding decision of a superior court. The problem has significant implications for legal certainty and public confidence. The NJC has itself issued policy directions addressing the problem of multiplicity of litigation in courts of coordinate jurisdiction and the resulting risk of conflicting orders on the same issues and facts.[55] This demonstrates that judicial inconsistency is not merely an academic concern. It can encourage forum shopping, increase litigation and make the outcome of disputes more difficult to predict.

An effective digital law-reporting and case-law retrieval system cannot, by itself, prevent conflicting judgments. It can, however, substantially reduce one important contributing factor being the difficulty in locating and accessing relevant precedent. Digital access to authoritative decisions should therefore form an integral part of judicial digitalisation rather than being treated as an ancillary publishing function.

7. EXISTING AREAS OF JUDICIAL DIGITALISATION IN NIGERIA

Digitalisation of the Nigerian judiciary is no longer merely a policy aspiration. It has already been introduced in several aspects of judicial administration and adjudication, although the extent of implementation differs significantly among courts and jurisdictions. The principal areas include electronic filing, electronic payment, virtual hearings, case-management systems, electronic records, digital recording and transcription, online access to court information and, increasingly, electronic verification of judicial documents.

• Electronic Filing and E-Payment

Electronic filing represents one of the most significant areas of judicial digitalisation. It enables litigants and legal practitioners to initiate proceedings and file processes without physically attending court registries. The Lagos State Judiciary, for example, has operated its Judiciary Information System (JIS), incorporating electronic filing, case registration, case-status tracking and electronic payment.[56] The Lagos Judiciary platform provide e-filing and online case-search facilities, demonstrating that electronic filing has moved beyond an experimental stage in at least some Nigerian jurisdictions.[57]

The Federal High Court has also introduced digital services, including an electronic affidavit and verification platform through which affidavits may be processed and verified electronically.[58] These developments have the potential to reduce congestion at registries, minimise paper-based errors, improve filing records and enable litigants and counsel to initiate or monitor proceedings remotely. Nevertheless, the benefits depend upon reliable infrastructure, properly trained registry personnel, clear procedural rules and the availability of technical support.

• Electronic Service and Virtual Hearings

The COVID-19 experience accelerated the use of electronic communication for service of processes, hearing notices and other court-related communications. The NJC’s 2020 Guidelines expressly contemplated electronic means of communication and remote hearings, thereby providing an important institutional foundation for virtual adjudication.[59] Virtual hearings are particularly useful for interlocutory applications, directions, case-management conferences and other matters that do not necessarily require the physical presence of witnesses. They can reduce travel costs, minimise adjournments occasioned by distance and enable courts to continue functioning during emergencies. However, virtual hearings should not be treated as a universal substitute for physical proceedings. Questions concerning fair hearing, public access, witness examination, confidentiality, authentication of documents and technological inequality must determine whether a particular proceeding is appropriately conducted remotely.[60]

• Electronic Case Management

Effective digitalisation requires more than putting documents online. A digitalised judiciary must be able to electronically register cases, allocate matters, monitor adjournments, track pending applications, generate cause lists, identify dormant cases and produce reliable judicial statistics. The NJC National Judicial Policy recognises the importance of case-flow management and electronic systems for tracking cases and judicial performance.[61]

• Electronic Records, Recording and Transcription

The conversion of paper files into secure electronic records is another essential component of judicial digitalisation. Electronic records can facilitate rapid retrieval, controlled access, remote transmission and preservation of court documents.[62] They can also reduce the risks associated with physical files being lost, damaged or improperly stored. The NJC has recognised electronic and digital recording and transcription as part of judicial technological development.[63] During the COVID-19 period, its guidelines further contemplated electronic recording of virtual proceedings and the production of certified copies of the records of such proceedings.[64] The long-term objective should therefore be the development of authenticated electronic court records capable of being accessed securely by judges, registries, counsel and authorised litigants.

• Digital Access to Court Information and Judicial Decisions

Another important aspect of digitalisation is the publication of court information online. Cause lists, court calendars, forms, procedural information and case-status information can significantly improve transparency and reduce the need for physical visits to court premises. Digital access also assists counsel in preparing for proceedings and allows litigants to monitor their cases more effectively. The development of comprehensive digital law reporting is, however, particularly important. In a common-law legal system, access to judicial decisions is indispensable to the proper operation of precedent.[65] A central, searchable and authenticated repository of judgments would assist judges and counsel in identifying relevant authorities, reduce the likelihood of reliance on incomplete or outdated reports and improve consistency in judicial reasoning.[66] Digital law reporting should therefore be regarded not merely as an information service but as an essential component of the administration of justice.

 

 

• Digitalisation of Probate and Other Registry Services

Digitalisation should extend beyond ordinary litigation. Probate and administration of estates involve substantial interaction with registries, production and verification of documents, payment of fees and issuance of official instruments.[67] The digitisation of these processes can reduce administrative bottlenecks and improve transparency. Similarly, processes relating to filing, certification, payment, obtaining court forms, searching records and communicating with registries should progressively be brought within integrated electronic platforms. The objective should be to transform the registry from a predominantly paper-processing unit into a digitally managed administrative component of the justice system.

7.7 The Problem of Fragmented Digitalisation

Despite these developments, Nigerian judicial digitalisation remains uneven. The existence of sophisticated digital services in one jurisdiction does not mean that the same services are available, interoperable or equally reliable in another.[68] This is partly a consequence of Nigeria’s constitutional structure, under which Federal and State judiciaries operate through separate institutional arrangements. The principal challenge is therefore no longer whether technology should be introduced into the judiciary, but whether existing technological initiatives can be integrated into a coherent national framework. Different platforms, incompatible databases, varying filing procedures, inconsistent standards for electronic records and unequal infrastructure can create a new form of fragmentation. Digitalisation that merely reproduces existing institutional silos will improve individual processes without necessarily transforming the justice system as a whole.

Accordingly, accelerated digitalisation should pursue interoperability, common minimum technical and security standards, reliable electronic records, authenticated digital law reporting and seamless movement of information between appropriate judicial institutions. Technology must ultimately be evaluated by its capacity to produce measurable improvements in timeliness, accessibility, transparency, cost, quality and public confidence in the administration of justice.

 

8. PROSPECTS OF DIGITALISATION TO IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

The principal justification for accelerated judicial digitalisation is not technological modernisation for its own sake, but the improvement of the quality, accessibility, timeliness and efficiency of justice.[69] Properly designed digital systems can address several of the administrative and procedural weaknesses responsible for delay in the Nigerian justice system.[70] The objective should therefore be to deploy technology strategically at points in the judicial process where it can produce measurable improvements in justice delivery.

8.1 Reduction of Delay and Case Backlog

One of the greatest potential benefits of digitalisation is the reduction of avoidable delay. Electronic filing eliminates the need for physical submission and manual movement of documents between registries and courtrooms. Electronic case-management systems can automatically record filing dates, monitor procedural deadlines, identify pending applications and generate alerts concerning inactive or overdue cases.

Digital case tracking can consequently assist judges and registrars in identifying matters that require immediate attention. It can also provide judicial administrators with reliable data concerning the age and progress of cases. This is consistent with the National Judicial Policy’s emphasis on case-flow management, time standards and the systematic monitoring of pending cases.[71] Technology cannot, however, cure delay caused by insufficient judicial manpower, frequent adjournments, inadequate courtrooms, procedural abuse or ineffective enforcement of judgments. Digitalisation should therefore form part of a broader case-management reform.

• Improving Access to Justice

Physical distance from courts, transportation costs, accommodation expenses and repeated attendance at registries can constitute substantial barriers to justice.[72] Digital services can reduce some of these burdens by allowing litigants and counsel to file documents, make payments, obtain information and monitor cases remotely. Virtual hearings may further improve access where physical attendance is unnecessary or disproportionately burdensome.[73] This is particularly valuable for interlocutory proceedings and case-management conferences. The principle of access to justice, however, requires that digitalisation should not make physical access disappear before adequate alternatives exist. A person who lacks reliable internet access, electricity, a suitable device or digital literacy should not be effectively excluded from the judicial system merely because court services have moved online.[74]

• Increasing Transparency and Accountability

Digitalisation can improve transparency by creating reliable electronic records of judicial and administrative activity. Electronic case-management systems can show when processes are filed, when applications are assigned, when proceedings occur and when decisions are delivered[75]. Proper audit trails can make unauthorised alteration or disappearance of records more difficult. Similarly, online publication of cause lists, judgments, practice directions and procedural information can reduce information asymmetry between courts, lawyers and litigants.[76] Greater availability of judicial information can also strengthen public confidence in the justice system, provided that publication is subject to appropriate safeguards concerning privacy, confidential information and vulnerable persons.

8.4 Strengthening Judicial Research and Consistency

A searchable electronic repository of legislation and judicial decisions can significantly improve legal research. Judges and counsel should be able to identify relevant constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations and judicial authorities without depending exclusively upon physical law reports or fragmented databases.[77] This is particularly important in Nigeria because judicial precedent plays an important role in the common-law system. Accessible and authenticated digital law reporting can reduce the risk of counsel and courts relying upon incomplete, inaccurate or obsolete authorities.[78] It can also facilitate identification of conflicting decisions and make it easier for superior courts to resolve doctrinal uncertainty.

Digital law reporting must nevertheless preserve authenticity. A judgment placed online should be identifiable as an official judicial record, protected against unauthorised alteration and capable of being distinguished from unofficial summaries or reproductions. The development of a nationally reliable electronic repository of judgments should therefore be treated as a core judicial infrastructure project rather than a supplementary technological service.[79]

• Improving Court Administration and Judicial Performance

Digitalisation can transform the work of registrars and other court administrators. Instead of relying predominantly on paper registers, administrators can use electronic systems to monitor filings, calculate case duration, manage court calendars, allocate courtrooms and generate statistical reports.[80]

The availability of reliable data would also strengthen evidence-based judicial administration. Judicial authorities could determine, for example, which courts have the largest backlogs, which categories of cases experience the greatest delay and where additional judges, registrars or technological resources are most urgently required. This would permit resources to be allocated according to demonstrated need rather than assumption. The NJC National Judicial Policy’s requirements concerning case-flow matrices, case-tracking registers and the collection of judicial performance information provide a basis for this approach.[81]

• Reducing Cost and Administrative Waste

Paper-based judicial administration generates recurrent costs associated with printing, storage, transportation, photocopying, physical retrieval and preservation of files. Electronic records can substantially reduce these expenses over time, although the initial cost of infrastructure, software, cybersecurity, training and maintenance may be significant.[82] The appropriate question is therefore not whether digitalisation has a cost, but whether the cost of maintaining inefficient paper-dependent systems is greater than the investment required for sustainable digital transformation. A properly implemented system should produce long-term administrative savings while simultaneously improving service delivery.

9. Digitalisation as a Support for Judicial Independence

Properly designed digital systems can strengthen judicial independence by reducing unnecessary administrative dependence and improving the integrity of judicial records.[83] Electronic filing, automated case tracking and transparent allocation systems can reduce opportunities for administrative interference in the movement or prioritisation of cases. Secure digital records can also make it more difficult for files to be deliberately misplaced, altered or withheld. The National Judicial Policy recognises judicial independence as a fundamental objective of judicial administration and links effective judicial performance with appropriate institutional structures, resources, technology and accountability.[84] Digitalisation should therefore be regarded as an instrument for supporting institutional independence rather than as a mechanism for transferring administrative control from judicial officers to technology administrators.

• Improving Continuity and Resilience

The COVID-19 experience demonstrated the importance of continuity mechanisms in the administration of justice. Courts must be capable of maintaining essential operations during pandemics, natural disasters, insecurity, industrial action or other circumstances that restrict physical access.[85] Secure electronic records, remote communication systems, electronic filing and appropriately designed virtual hearing facilities can provide such resilience. Digitalisation should consequently be regarded not merely as an efficiency measure but also as part of the judiciary’s institutional preparedness for future disruptions.[86] It is important to avoid technological determinism. The introduction of computers, electronic filing or virtual hearings does not automatically produce a faster or more effective judiciary. If inefficient procedures are simply transferred from paper to electronic platforms, digitalisation may merely reproduce existing inefficiencies in a different form.

Accelerated digitalisation must therefore be accompanied by procedural simplification, adequate funding, judicial and registry training, infrastructure development, cybersecurity, data governance, law reform and effective performance measurement. The ultimate test is not how technologically sophisticated a court appears, but whether litigants receive justice more promptly, affordably, fairly and predictably.

• Judicial Control over Digital Infrastructure

A major concern is the question of who controls the technology upon which judicial administration depends. If critical court databases, case-management platforms or electronic records are controlled entirely by external contractors or government agencies outside the judiciary, questions may arise concerning access, modification, preservation and continuity of judicial information.[87] The judiciary should accordingly retain institutional control over its core judicial data and establish clear rules concerning ownership, custody, access and preservation. Contracts with technology providers should include provisions relating to data security, confidentiality, system availability, audit rights, continuity of service, technical support and the return or migration of judicial data when a contract expires.

• Cybersecurity and Integrity of Judicial Records

Digitalisation increases the volume of sensitive information stored electronically. Court records may contain personal information, financial records, commercial secrets, evidence, addresses and other information that requires protection. A compromised judicial database could therefore have consequences extending beyond administrative inconvenience and could affect the rights and interests of litigants.[88] Cybersecurity must consequently be treated as a core component of judicial independence and institutional integrity. Access controls, encryption, authentication, audit trails, secure backups, incident-response mechanisms and regular security assessments should form part of the architecture of every major judicial information system. The National Judicial Policy’s emphasis on ICT infrastructure and effective court administration should be understood as requiring not merely acquisition of technology but its secure and sustainable deployment.[89]

• Digital Case Allocation and the Risk of Algorithmic Interference

Digital systems may increasingly be used to allocate cases, organise cause lists, prioritise administrative tasks and generate judicial statistics. Such automation can improve efficiency, but it must not undermine the constitutional responsibility of judicial officers.[90] Where algorithms are used in judicial administration, the criteria by which decisions are generated should be transparent, auditable and subject to human oversight. The allocation of cases should not become an opaque technological process capable of manipulation or producing unexplained outcomes.[91] Ultimately, technology may support administrative decisions, but judicial responsibility must remain with constitutionally authorised institutions and judicial officers.

• Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Independence

The emergence of artificial intelligence presents an additional dimension to judicial independence. AI tools may assist with legal research, document review, transcription, translation, summarisation and administrative analysis.[92] They may therefore significantly reduce the time required for certain judicial tasks. However, AI-generated material can contain errors, fabricated authorities, biased outputs or conclusions based upon incomplete information. The use of AI in judicial work must consequently remain subject to judicial verification and professional responsibility.[93] An AI system should assist the judge, not become a substitute for the judicial determination of disputed questions.

This distinction is particularly important because judicial decisions derive their legitimacy from constitutionally established authority, fair hearing, reasoned adjudication and judicial responsibility. Technology may enhance these processes, but it cannot assume the constitutional role of the judge.

• Independence, Accountability and Transparency

Judicial independence does not mean freedom from accountability. On the contrary, a digitally enabled judiciary can improve accountability by generating reliable administrative records and performance information without exposing the substance of judicial decision-making to inappropriate external control. The challenge is therefore to establish an appropriate balance. Digital systems should permit legitimate institutional monitoring of administrative performance, such as case duration, backlog, registry efficiency and compliance with procedural requirements, while protecting judges from improper interference concerning the outcome of individual cases.

• Institutional Safeguards

Accelerated digitalisation should consequently be accompanied by a clear governance framework.[94] Such a framework should identify the respective responsibilities of the National Judicial Council, individual courts, registries, information-technology departments and external service providers. It should also establish minimum standards for cybersecurity, data protection, system procurement, digital evidence, electronic records and access to judicial information.[95]

The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 provides an important statutory framework for the protection of personal data and should inform the design and operation of judicial information systems.[96] Judicial digitalisation must therefore pursue two objectives simultaneously: improving the availability and efficiency of judicial information while ensuring that such information is collected, processed, stored and disclosed lawfully and securely. The ultimate point is that digitalisation should be judicially owned, even where technological expertise and infrastructure are obtained from external providers. The judiciary must determine its institutional objectives, procedural requirements and ethical safeguards. Technology providers should implement those requirements rather than determine them.

10. CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF AN INTEGRATED NATIONAL DIGITAL JUDICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

While digitalisation offers significant opportunities for improving the administration of justice, technological development also creates new legal, institutional and ethical challenges.[97] The judiciary is increasingly required to adjudicate disputes arising from electronic transactions, digital evidence, data protection, cybercrime, intellectual property, artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. At the same time, the courts themselves become users and custodians of digital systems. Accelerated digitalisation must therefore address both the opportunities presented by technology and the risks that accompany its adoption.

 

 

• Electronic Evidence and Authentication

The increasing use of electronic communications, digital transactions, electronic documents, photographs, audio recordings and other digital materials has expanded the evidential questions confronting Nigerian courts. The Evidence Act 2011 recognises electronic evidence and establishes requirements governing its admissibility and authentication.[98] Judicial digitalisation consequently requires judges, lawyers and registry personnel to possess sufficient technological and evidential competence to determine questions concerning the origin, integrity, reliability and authenticity of electronic evidence. The challenge is not simply to admit digital material but to ensure that its admission and evaluation remain consistent with the principles of fairness and reliable adjudication.

• Cybersecurity and Cybercrime

Greater dependence upon digital systems exposes courts to cybersecurity risks. Unauthorised access, alteration or destruction of electronic court records could compromise the integrity of proceedings and potentially prejudice litigants.[99] Cybercrime also generates disputes requiring judicial determination under increasingly complex statutory and technological frameworks. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as amended in 2024, provides a principal legislative framework for addressing cyber-related offences in Nigeria.[100] Judicial digitalisation must therefore be accompanied by adequate cybersecurity architecture, including secure authentication, access controls, encryption, regular backups, audit trails and effective incident-response procedures.

• Data Protection and Privacy

Court records may contain extensive personal and confidential information. The movement from physical files to electronic databases increases the ability to access, copy, transmit and analyse such information. This creates important questions concerning privacy, data retention, disclosure and lawful processing. The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 establishes a statutory framework governing the processing and protection of personal data.[101] Judicial institutions must therefore develop data-governance policies addressing who may access judicial information, for what purposes, how long information should be retained and the circumstances in which information may properly be disclosed or published.

The principle of open justice must also be balanced against legitimate privacy interests. While judgments and proceedings should generally be accessible, unrestricted online publication of personal information may expose litigants, witnesses and vulnerable persons to unnecessary harm.[102] Digitalisation therefore requires carefully designed rules concerning redaction, anonymisation and controlled access.

• Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making

Artificial intelligence is likely to become increasingly relevant to judicial administration. It may assist with legal research, transcription, translation, document classification, case summarisation and administrative analysis. However, use of AI raises questions concerning accuracy, bias, explainability, confidentiality and accountability. An AI system may generate an apparently authoritative answer containing inaccurate legal propositions or fictitious authorities. The responsibility for verifying the accuracy of AI-generated material must therefore remain with the judicial officer or legal practitioner using the system.[103]

• Deepfakes and the Reliability of Digital Material

Advances in artificial intelligence have also made it increasingly possible to manipulate audio, video and images in ways that may be difficult to detect without specialised technical tools. This creates an emerging challenge for courts because the apparent authenticity of digital evidence may no longer provide sufficient assurance of its reliability.[104] The judiciary must therefore develop adequate expertise and procedures for testing sophisticated forms of digital evidence. Judges may need to rely upon expert testimony, forensic examination, metadata and other technical methods when the authenticity or integrity of digital material is seriously disputed. The evidential framework must evolve sufficiently to preserve confidence in adjudication without imposing unrealistic barriers to legitimate electronic evidence.

• Technology, Fair Hearing and the Right to be Heard

The use of technology must remain subordinate to constitutional guarantees of fair hearing. Section 36(1) of the Constitution guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.[105] A technological system that prevents a party from effectively presenting evidence, hearing the opposing party, consulting counsel or participating meaningfully in proceedings may undermine rather than advance justice. Virtual hearings must therefore be assessed according to their practical impact on participation and fairness, not merely according to whether the technology functions technically.[106]

10.8 Digital Inequality

Technology can improve access to justice for those who can use it while simultaneously creating barriers for those who cannot. Differences in internet access, electricity supply, digital literacy, financial capacity and availability of appropriate devices may produce unequal access to judicial services.

This problem is particularly significant in a country with substantial differences in infrastructure and economic capacity across regions. Accelerated digitalisation should therefore adopt a principle of digital inclusion. Courts should retain appropriate physical channels and provide assistance mechanisms until digital services are sufficiently accessible and reliable for all categories of court users.

• Absence of Continuous Judicial Education

Technological advancements relevant to judicial digitalisation present challenges makes continuing judicial education indispensable.[107] Judges, magistrates, registrars and legal practitioners require training not only in the operation of digital platforms but also in the legal implications of technology. The National Judicial Policy already recognises the need for judicial education in information and communication technology, electronic legal research and related areas.[108] Accelerated digitalisation should build upon this policy by establishing continuous training in electronic evidence, cybersecurity, data protection, artificial intelligence, digital research and the ethical use of emerging technologies.[109]

• Struggle to Balance Innovation with Judicial Integrity

The central challenge is therefore to encourage technological innovation without sacrificing the fundamental values of adjudication. Speed, convenience and automation are desirable only where they remain consistent with independence, impartiality, fair hearing, transparency, privacy and the integrity of the judicial process.[110]

Digitalisation should accordingly be governed by the principle that technology must serve justice, rather than justice being reshaped merely to accommodate technology. The Nigerian judiciary should embrace innovation while maintaining human responsibility, constitutional safeguards and institutional accountability at every stage of digital transformation.

11. RECOMMENDATIONS

From the foregoing, this paper proffers the following recommendations:

11. • National Standards and Interoperability

Accelerated digitalisation requires common technical and procedural standards applicable across the Nigerian judiciary. Such standards should address electronic filing, digital signatures, electronic service, case numbering, document formats, metadata, electronic records, authentication, retention and destruction of judicial records. Without interoperability, litigants and legal practitioners may be required to operate different systems in different courts, thereby reproducing administrative inefficiency in digital form. The NJC’s policy already contemplates the integration of judicial information systems and the development of electronic case-flow management.

 

 

• Integrated Digital Law Reporting

Digitalisation should also extend to law reporting. An authoritative and searchable national repository of judgments would improve access to precedent, facilitate judicial research and reduce the risk of decisions being overlooked by counsel and courts. The repository should contain judgments of superior courts of record, properly indexed and searchable by case name, citation, subject matter, statute and legal principle. Where appropriate, judgments should be accompanied by authenticated electronic signatures or other mechanisms capable of verifying their integrity.

• Electronic Records and Centralised Data Management

Judicial records constitute institutional assets and should not depend exclusively on individual court registries or physical files. A properly designed digital records system should provide secure storage, controlled access, audit trails, automatic backups and disaster-recovery mechanisms. The NJC’s Judicial Information Technology Policy recognises the importance of confidentiality, integrity and availability of judicial information and provides for secure storage, recovery processes, incident management and data-centre deployment. The NJC’s own automation of its document-management operations further demonstrates the practical application of controlled electronic access and document tracking within judicial administration.

• Cybersecurity and Data Protection

An integrated judicial infrastructure must be accompanied by a comprehensive cybersecurity framework. Courts process highly sensitive information, including personal data, criminal records, commercial information, confidential legal documents and evidence. Security therefore cannot be treated as an afterthought to digitalisation. Access controls, encryption, multi-factor authentication, audit logs, secure backups, vulnerability testing, incident-response procedures and disaster-recovery arrangements should be mandatory components of judicial information systems. The NJC’s Judicial Information Technology Policy expressly recognises these requirements, while the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 provides the wider statutory framework for responsible processing and protection of personal data.

• National Digital Judicial Infrastructure as a Long-Term Reform

The ultimate objective should be the development of a National Digital Judicial Infrastructure rather than a collection of disconnected court technologies. Such infrastructure should permit Federal and State judiciaries to retain their constitutional and administrative identities while operating within agreed technical, security and interoperability standards. This approach would preserve judicial autonomy while reducing unnecessary technological duplication and ensuring that digital justice is available beyond a small number of technologically advanced courts. The NJC’s existing policy framework provides an important foundation, but its effective implementation requires sustained funding, technical expertise, institutional coordination and measurable performance standards.

• Ensuring and Maintaining Fair Hearing and Right to be Heard

Digital justice must remain consistent with fair hearing, equality before the law, judicial independence, confidentiality and the integrity of judicial decision-making. The digital divide must not produce a system in which persons without adequate technology or digital literacy are effectively excluded from justice. Courts should consequently maintain appropriate assisted-digital and, where necessary, physical alternatives.

• Balancing Technological Innovation with Judicial Integrity

The future of the Nigerian Judiciary should therefore not be conceived as a choice between the traditional courtroom and a completely virtual court. The appropriate objective is a hybrid, integrated and technology-enabled justice system in which physical and digital processes complement one another. Such a system should use technology where it improves efficiency and access while retaining physical processes where they remain necessary for fairness, participation and effective adjudication.

• Continuous Judicial Education

Judges, magistrates, registrars and legal practitioners require training not only in the operation of digital platforms but also in the legal implications of technology. The National Judicial Policy already recognises the need for judicial education in information and communication technology, electronic legal research and related areas.[111] Accelerated digitalisation should build upon this policy by establishing continuous training in electronic evidence, cybersecurity, data protection, artificial intelligence, digital research and the ethical use of emerging technologies.

12. CONCLUSION

Digitalisation presents a significant opportunity for the Nigerian Judiciary to address some of the persistent challenges confronting the administration of justice. The traditional dependence on physical files, manual processes, paper-based service, fragmented records and limited access to judicial information has contributed to avoidable administrative difficulties. The adoption of electronic filing, case management, digital records, electronic service, virtual hearings and accessible digital law reporting can improve the speed, efficiency, transparency and accessibility of judicial services. The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that technology is no longer merely an optional administrative convenience. The disruption of conventional court operations compelled the Nigerian Judiciary to explore virtual hearings, electronic service, digital recording and other technology-supported processes. However, the experience also exposed significant deficiencies in infrastructure, digital literacy, connectivity, cybersecurity and procedural preparedness. Digitalisation must therefore proceed beyond emergency responses towards a sustainable and properly regulated judicial transformation.

The central challenge is that digitalisation in Nigeria remains uneven. The constitutional structure of the Nigerian Judiciary, comprising Federal and State courts with distinct administrative arrangements, makes uniform technological development difficult. Although the NJC has an important coordinating and policy role, effective digitalisation requires sustained cooperation among the NJC, Heads of Courts, judicial administrators, government, legal practitioners and other stakeholders. The objective should be interoperability and common minimum standards without undermining the constitutional autonomy of individual courts and jurisdictions. Digitalisation must also be approached with caution. Technology cannot, by itself, eliminate judicial delay, conflicting decisions, inadequate funding, shortage of judicial personnel, procedural abuse or weaknesses in court administration. It is an instrument through which institutional reforms can be implemented more effectively. The real measure of success should therefore be whether digitalisation reduces case-processing time, improves access to justice, strengthens the integrity of judicial records, enhances judicial research and consistency, and reduces the cost and inconvenience associated with litigation.

The challenges discussed in this paper demonstrate why it would be misleading to suggest that digitalisation alone will resolve the difficulties facing the Nigerian judiciary. Some causes of delay are procedural; some are institutional; some arise from inadequate resources; and others originate outside the courts altogether. Digitalisation should therefore be integrated with reforms relating to case-flow management, judicial manpower, court administration, procedural rules, funding, continuing judicial education and law reporting. The more defensible proposition is that digitalisation can provide the infrastructure through which many existing reforms can operate more efficiently.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. PRIMARY SOURCES
2. Legislation
3. Child Rights Act 2003.
4. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
5. Criminal Code Act Cap 38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
6. Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015.
7. Evidence Act 2011.
8. Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.

B         Government and Institutional Publications

1. National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy(NJC).
2. National Judicial Council, Guidelines for Court Sittings and Related Matters during the COVID-19 Period(May 2020).
3. National Judicial Council, Policy Directions on Cross Jurisdiction Litigation(2022).
4. National Judicial Council, Circular No NJC/CIR/HOC/II/631, ‘Preventive Measures on the Spread of Corona Virus (COVID-19) and the Protection of Justices, Judges and Staff of Courts’ (23 March 2020).
5. National Judicial Council, Circular No NJC/CIR/HOC/II/656, ‘Preventive Measures on the Spread of Corona Virus (COVID-19) and the Protection of Justices, Judges and Staff of Courts’ (6 April 2020).
6. SECONDARY SOURCES

A         Books

1. Gasiokwu MOU, Human Rights: History, Ideology and Law(Mono Expression Ltd 2001).
2. Journal Articles
3. Abdulkareem T, ‘Automation of Court Processes in the Administration of Justice in Nigeria: Prospects and Challenges’ (2026) Paper Presented at the 8th Adebayo Adelodun & Co accessed https://www.researchgate.net/publication/404067382_ Automation_of_Court_Processes_in_the_Administration_of_Justice_in_Nigeria_Prospects_and_Challengeson 2 September 2026.
4. Adesanmi FO and Adegbami A, ‘Court Records Management, Administration of Justice and Good Governance in Nigeria’ (2025) 17(1) Acta Universitas Danubius.
5. Adesuyi OO, ‘AI-Enabled Interoperability in Nigeria’s Public Sector: Evaluating the Role of X-Road Digital Infrastructure’ (2026) 10(2) American Journal of Artificial Intelligence.
6. Afolabi A, ‘Understanding the Rule of Law in Nigeria: Concepts and the Judiciary’s Role’ (2025) 12(3) Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Commercial and Property Law.
7. Ahmed S, ‘Online Courts and Private and Public Aspects of Open Justice: Enhancing Access to Court or Violating the Right to Privacy?’ (2023) The Age of Human Rights Journalaccessed https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 370508823_Online_Courts_and_Private_and_Public_Aspects_of_Open_Justice_Enhancing_Access_to_Court_or_Violating_the_Right_to_Privacy on 3 September 2026.
8. Aidonodji PA, Wakili SA and Ayuba D, ‘Effectiveness of the Administration of Justice in Nigeria under the Development of Digital Technologies’ (2023) 1(4) Journal of Digital Technologies and Law
9. Anike DO, ‘Effective Strategies for Managing Records in Contemporary Organisations’ (2025) 1(1) Journal of Teaching, Learning and Curriculum
10. Anushiem MI, ‘Delay in Justice Delivery in Nigeria: Causes and Reform Strategies’ (2026) 13(1) Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Commercial and Property Law
11. Arewa O and Fakolade A, ‘Digitalization, Fragmentation, and Justice in Nigeria’ (2023) George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No LS 23-16, Chapter in Digitalization as a Challenge for Justice and Administrationaccessed https://ssrn.com/abstract=4557938.
12. Borgesano F, De Maio A, Laghi P and Others, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Justice: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Perspectives on Justice 5.0’ (2025) 28(11) European Journal of Innovation Management.
13. Bosio E, ‘Improving the Efficiency of Courts Can Boost a Country’s Economic Growth’ (World Bank, 23 January 2025).
14. Djuraev I, Baratov A, Khujayev S and Others, ‘The Impact of Digitalisation on Legal System in Developing Countries’ (2025) 5(1) Qubahan Academic Journal
15. Ewuzie MA, ‘Judiciary and Administration of Justice: An Overview of the Persistent Challenges to Justice Delivery in Nigeria’ (2024) 1(2) Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of Human Rights Law.
16. Frynas JG, ‘Problems of Access to Courts in Nigeria: Results of a Survey of Legal Practitioners’ (2001) 10(3) Social and Legal Studies
17. Gorni EK, ‘Justice Delayed: The Growing Crisis in our Court System’ (2026) accessed https://www.researchgate.net/publication/408538373_justice_delayed_the_growing_crisis_in_our_court_systemon 1 September 2026.
18. Gradillas M and Thomas LDW, ‘Distinguishing Digitisation: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework’ (2023) 42(1) Journal of Product Innovation Management
19. Greatness EE, ‘The Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and Conflict of Supreme Courts Decisions in Nigeria’ (2025) 3(1) Lawrit Journal of Law.
20. Hall RJ, ‘Multiracial Democracy and Civil Rights Enforcement’ The Regulatory Review(2026) accessed https://www.theregreview.org/2026/04/19/spotlight-multiracial-democracy-and-civil-rights-enforcement on 1 September 2026.
21. Ikuforji O and Adeboye M, ‘Justice in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: is Nigeria’s Evidence Act Adequate for AI-Generated Evidence?’ (2026) accessed https://oal.law/justice-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence-is-nigerias-evidence-act-adequate-for-ai-generated-evidence-2on 3 September 2026.
22. Ilchyshyn N, ‘Impact of Digitalisation on the Justice System: Challenges of Administrative Justice’ (2025) Social and Legal Studiesaccessed https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396107606_Impact_of_digitalisation_on_the_justice_system_Challenges_of_administrative_justice.
23. Joy EO, ‘E-governance and Transparency in the Rivers State Judiciary, 2014–2025’ (2026) 8(6) International Journal of Political Science and Governance.
24. Kenebara FA, ‘Digital Era Implications and Intelligence Management in Organisational Reforms: The Judicial Systems in Nigeria’ (2026) accessed https://www.researchgate.net/publication/406970914_Digital_era_implications_and_intelligence_management_in_organizational_reforms_The_judicial_systems_in_Nigeriaon 2 September 2026.
25. Khairunnisa L, ‘The Influence of Globalisation on the Development of National Law and Judicial Practices’ (2025) 1(1) Journal of Legal and Judicial Studies
26. Lima da Costa R, Lunardi FC and Guimaraes T, ‘Virtual Hearings, Efficiency, and Access to Justice: A Lawyers’ Perception Survey’ (2026) 22(2614) Revista Direito GV.
27. Mansoor SI, Shah SA and Wani SA, ‘Digital Forensics and Chain of Custody: Safeguarding the Integrity and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Legal Proceedings’ in Nengomasha T (ed), Legal and Regulatory Perspectives on Electronic Records as Evidence(IGI Global Scientific Publishing 2025) 191.
28. Mekki SA, ‘Prioritising Efficiency in the Judicial System’ (2024) accessed https://www.cplj.org/publications/11-0-prioritizing-efficiency-in-the-judicial-systemon 1 September 2026.
29. Nduka RE, ‘Taming Judicial Discord: Addressing the Menace of Conflicting Decisions in Nigerian Courts’ (2025) 6(3) Law and Social Justice Review.
30. Nduka RE, ‘The Ethical Limits of Artificial Intelligence use by Lawyers and Judges: A Nigerian Perspective with Comparative Analysis’ (2026) 4(2) Awka Capital Bar Journal
31. Obi UV, ‘Virtual Proceedings—Pros and Cons’ (2020) accessed https://alliancelawfirm.ng/virtual-proceedings-pros-and-conson 2 September 2026.
32. Odunsi B, Haggai MBO and Coleman, ‘Administration of Justice in Nigeria: Ideological Constraints and Allied Challenges’ (2024) 8(2) Strathmore Law Journal.
33. Ogwezzy MC, ‘Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Transformation of Judicial System in Nigeria: from Traditional to Digital Justice’ (2025) 3(2) Journal of Digital Technologies and Law
34. Okeji SM, Adedoyin-Raji JO and Isa YI, ‘Legal Frameworks for the Implementation of Electronic Governance in Nigeria and Matters Arising’ (2024) 15(2) Environmental Technology and Science Journal
35. Okeke UC, ‘Enhancing Justice through Technology in Developing Countries: Technology-Based Initiatives, Challenges and Emerging Technologies’ (2026) 16(3) International Journal for Court Administration
36. Okogbule NS, ‘Access to Justice and Human Rights Protection in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects’ (2005) International Journal on Human Rights.
37. Oluwakayode OB and Oluwakemi EB, ‘Administration of Justice in Nigeria: Analysing the Dominant Legal Ideology’ (2018) 10(1) Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution
38. Osuagwu P, ‘Why Courts Can’t Remain Detached from Tech Devts—CJN’ Vanguard(15 May 2026) accessed https://www.vanguardngr.com /2026/05/why-courts-cant-remain-detached-from-tech-devts-cjn on 2 September 2026.
39. Otu MS, Olugasa OA and James LD, ‘Estate Administration and Bank Compliance in Nigeria: Lessons from the Common Law and Hybrid Jurisdictions’ (2026) 7(2) Batulis Civil Law Review
40. Ramos-Maqueda M, ‘The Data Revolution in Justice’ (2025) 186 World Development.
41. Saman W and Haider A, ‘Electronic Court Records Management: A Case Study’ (2012) Journal of E-Government Studies and Best Practicesaccessed https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266889839_Electronic_Court_Records_Management_A_Case_Study on 2 September 2026.
42. Staskiewicz W and Stawecki T, ‘Legal Databases and their Functions in the Process of Interpreting and Applying the Law’ (2012) 4(1) Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Spolecznej
43. Sule I, Olorunyomi F, Ajah J and Usman A, ‘Virtual Court Proceedings in Nigeria: Some Legal Matters Arising’ (2024) 3(3) European Journal of Law and Political Science
44. Sunday-Ayeerun A, Herbert EB and Ole NC, ‘Covid-19 Induced Virtual Courts Sessions in Nigeria: Practicalities and Impracticalities’ (2022) 9(2) Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
45. Swain DK and Panda K, ‘An Overview of Digitisation of Information Resources’ (2009) accessed https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40910531_An_Overview_of_Digitization_of_Information_Resourceson 1 September 2026.
46. Reports
47. The Pew Charitable Trusts, How Courts Embraced Technology, Met the Pandemic Challenge, and Revolutionized Their Operations(2021).
48. World Bank, Global Program on Justice and Rule of Law: Justice Pillars Towards Evidence-Based Reform (JUPITER).
49. Theses and Dissertations
50. Drabo F, The Digitisation of Court Processes in African Regional and Subregional Judicial Institutions(Doctoral Study Submitted to Walden University 2018).
51. Online Resources
52. Australasian Legal Information Institute accessed http://www.austlii.edu.au.
53. British and Irish Legal Information Institute accessed https://www.bailii.org.
54. Canadian Legal Information Institute accessed https://www.caniii.org/en.
55. Federal High Court of Nigeria, Electronic Court Management System (ECMS): E-Affidavit and E-Verification Portalaccessed https://portal.fhc.gov.ng on 2 September 2026.
56. Lagos State Judiciary, Judiciary Information System (JIS).
57. Lagos State Judiciary, ‘E-Filing Services’ accessed https://lagosjudiciary.gov.ng/EFiling_Services.aspxon 2 September 2026.
58. Legal Information Institute accessed https://www.law.cornell.edu.
59. Nigeria Legal Information Institute accessed https://nigerialii.org/home.

 

 

CONFERENCE PAPERS PRESENTED AT INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL RETREATS / CONFERENCES

1.	12/11/2024 Kigali, Republic of Rwanda	Balancing caseload efficiency and judicial well-being: Strategies for effective time and stress management in the Judiciary
2.	19/11/2024 Kigali, Republic of Rwanda	Streamlining Judicial Processes through Technology: A key to combating Cybercrime
3.	6/12/2024 United States (US), Atlanta	Demands of Justice and Challenges of Progressive interpretation of the Laws
4.	17/12/2024 Kigali, Republic of Rwanda	E-Courts and Digital Justice: The future of the Nigerian Judiciary
5.	23/09/2025 Kigali, Republic of Rwanda	Judiciary and Crises of Speed Justice delivery in a Society with multiple Security Challenges
6.	17/11/2025 Dubai, U.A.E	Judicial Officers and Life after Retirement
7.	18/11/2025 Dubai, U.A.E	Role of Judicial Officers in accelerated Digitalization of the Judiciary
8.	16/12/2025 Atlanta-Georgia United States of America (USA)	The Challenges of the Independence of the Judiciary in the Third World Countries and the Nigerian Example.
9.	10/08/2026 London, United Kingdom	Judicial Integrity: Upholding the Rule of Law in Challenging Times
10.	8/09/2026 Kigali, Republic of Rwanda	Ethics, Accountability, and Value Orientation in the Judiciary: Towards Strengthening Public Trust and Judicial Integrity
11.	29/09/2026 Dubai, U.A.E	Analysis of Accelerated Digitalisation of the Nigerian Judiciary

 

[1] CFRN, s 6(1), (2) and (6)(b).

[2] Omoleye Benson Oluwakayode and Eniola Bolanle Oluwakemi, ‘Administration of Justice in Nigeria: Analysing the Dominant Legal Ideology’ Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution (2018) (10) (1) 1, 1–8.

[3] Babafemi Odunsi, M Bukola Odunsi Haggai and Coleman, ‘Administration of Justice in Nigeria: Ideological Constraints and Allied Challenges’ Strathmore Law Journal (2024) (8) (2).

[4] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy (NJC), para 2.4.10(a)–(c).

[5] National Judicial Council, ‘Guidelines for Court Sittings and Related Matters During the COVID-19 Period’ (2020).

[6] Maduka Alphonsus Ewuzie, ‘Judiciary and Administration of Justice: An Overview of the Persistent Challenges to Justice Delivery in Nigeria’ Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of Human Rights Law (2024) (1) (2).

[7] A Afolabi, ‘Understanding the Rule of Law in Nigeria: Concepts and the Judiciary’s Role’ Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Commercial and Property Law’ (2025) (12) (3).

[8] ibid.

[9] SA Mekki, ‘Prioritising Efficiency in the Judicial System’(2024) accessed from <https://www.cplj.org/publications/11-0-prioritizing-efficiency-in-the-judicial-system> on 1 September 2026 at 2:11PM

[10] CFRN s 36 (1)

[11] EK Gorni, ‘Justice Delayed: The Growing Crisis in our Court System’ (2026) accessed from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/408538373_JUSTICE_DELAYED_THE_GROWING_CRISIS_IN_OUR_COURT_SYSTEM> on 1 September 2026 at 2:27PM.

[12] DK Swain and K Panda, ‘An Overview of Digitisation of Information Resources’ (2009) accessed from < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40910531_An_Overview_of_Digitization_of_Information_Resources> on 1 September 2026 at 1:22PM.

[13] M Gradillas, and LDW Thomas, ‘Distinguishing Digitisation: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework‘ Journal of Product Innovation Management (2023) (42) (1) 112 – 143.

[14] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, para 2.4.10(a)–(c).

[15] LKhairunnisa, ‘The Influence of Globalisation on the Development of National Law and Judicial Practices’ Jurnal of Legal and Judicial Studies (2025) (1) (1) 21 – 28.

[16] ibid.

[17] World Bank, Global Program on Justice and Rule of Law: Justice Pillars Towards Evidence-Based Reform (JUPITER).

[18] RJ Hall, ‘Multiracial Democracy and Civil Rights Enforcement’ The Regulatory Review (2026) accessed from < https://www.theregreview.org/2026/04/19/spotlight-multiracial-democracy-and-civil-rights-enforcement/> on 1 September 2026 at 1:48PM.

[19] Erica Bosio, ‘Improving the Efficiency of Courts Can Boost a Country’s Economic Growth’ (World Bank, 23 January 2025).

[20] P Osuagwu, ‘Why Courts Can’t Remain Detached from Tech Devts – CJN’ Vanguard Online News of 15 May 2026 accessed from < https://www.vanguardngr.com/2026/05/why-courts-cant-remain-detached-from-tech-devts-cjn/#google_vignette> on 2 September 2026 at 2:06PM.

[21] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, para 2.4.10(a)–(c).

[22] Mondaq, ‘Judicial Precedent, Law Reporting and the Need for Regulation’ (2018) accessed from < https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/performance/754594/judicial-precedent-law-reporting-and-the-need-for-regulation> on 2 September 2026 at 2:19PM.

[23] UC Okeke, Énhancing Justice through Technology in Developing Countries: Technology – Based Initiatives, Challenges and Emerging Technologies’ International Journal for Court Administration (2026) (16) (3) 5 – 6.

[24] FO Adesanmi, and A Adegbami, Çourt Records Management, Administration of Justice and Good Governance in Nigeria’ Acta Universitas Danubius (2025) (17) (1).

[25] CFRN, s 6(1)–(5), particularly ss 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3).

[26] CFRN, s 153(1)(i); Part I, Third Schedule, paras 20–21.

[27] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, para 2.4.10(a)–(c).

[28] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, para 4.6(b).

[29] Okeke (n 23).

[30] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, para 2.4.10(a).

[31] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 2.5, 4.3–4.6 and 5.1–5.6.

[32] MC Ogwezzy, Ímpact of the COVID -19 Pandemic on the Transformation of Judicial System in Nigeria: from Traditional to Digital Justice’’ Journal of Digital Technologies and Law (2025) (3) (2) 338 – 362.

[33] ibid.

[34] National Judicial Council, Circular No NJC/CIR/HOC/II/631, ‘Preventive Measures on the Spread of Corona Virus (COVID-19) and the Protection of Justices, Judges and Staff of Courts’ (23 March 2020).

[35] National Judicial Council, Circular No NJC/CIR/HOC/II/656, ‘Preventive Measures on the Spread of Corona Virus (COVID-19) and the Protection of Justices, Judges and Staff of Courts’ (6 April 2020).

[36] National Judicial Council, Guidelines for Court Sittings and Related Matters in the COVID-19 Period (May 2020), paras E1–E5.

[37] ibid, para D4–D6.

[38] Ibid, para E6.

[39] Ibid, para G3.

[40] Ibid, paras E8–E12.

[41] Ademola Sunday-Ayeerun, Eti Best Herbert and Ngozi Chinwa Ole, ‘Covid-19 Induced Virtual Courts Sessions in Nigeria: Practicalities and Impracticalities’ Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (2022) (9) (2) 276, 276–296.

[42] MI Anushiem, ‘’Delay in Justice Delivery in Nigeria: Causes and Reform Strategies’ Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Commercial and Property Law (2026) (13) (1) 43 – 44.

[43] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 1.7–1.10.

[44] Ibid, para 2.5.

[45] Anushiem (n 42).

[46] National Judicial Council, ‘COTRIMCO submits interim report to NJC, Blames prosecution, Court and Prison for delay’ (2017) accessed from < https://njc.gov.ng/index.php/10/news-details> on 30 August 2026 at 1:22PM.

[47] ibid.

[48] F Drabo, The Digitisation of Court Processes in African Regional and Subregional Judicial Institutions (Doctoral Study Submitted to Walden University 2018).

[49] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 3.1–3.6 and 4.6.

[50] NS Okogbule, Access to Justice and Human Rights Protection in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects’ International Journal on Human Rights (2005) (3).

[51] National Judicial Council, Guidelines for Court Sittings and Related Matters in the COVID-19 Period (May 2020), para G3.

[52] EE Greatness, ‘The Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and Conflict of Supreme Courts Decisions in Nigeria’ Lawrit Journal of Law (2025) (3) (1).

[53] Rapuluchukwu Ernest Nduka, ‘Taming Judicial Discord: Addressing the Menace of Conflicting Decisions in Nigerian Courts’ Law and Social Justice Review (2025) (6) (3).

[54] Greatness (52).

[55] National Judicial Council, ‘Policy Directions on Cross Jurisdiction Litigation’ (2022), paras 1(a)–(c).

[56] Lagos State Judiciary, Judiciary Information System (JIS).

[57] Lagos State Judiciary, ‘E-Filing Services’ accessed from <https://lagosjudiciary.gov.ng/EFiling_Services.aspx> on 2 September 2026 at 5:15PM.

[58] Federal High Court of Nigeria, Electronic Court Management System (ECMS): E-Affidavit and E-Verification Portal accessed from <https://portal.fhc.gov.ng/> on 2 September 2026 at 5 :22PM.

[59] National Judicial Council, Guidelines for Court Sittings and Related Matters During the COVID-19 Period (May 2020), paras D4–D6 and E1–E12.

[60] Ibrahim Sule, Femi Olorunyomi, Joseph Ajah and Adama Usman, ‘Virtual Court Proceedings in Nigeria: Some Legal Matters Arising’ European Journal of Law and Political Science (2024) (3) (3) 17–22.

[61] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 2.4.10, 2.5 and 4.3–4.6.

[62] W Saman, and A Haider, ‘Electronic Court Records Management: A Case Study’ Journal of E – Government Studies and Best Practices (2012) accessed from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266889839_Electronic_Court_Records_Management_A_Case_Study> on 2 September 2026 at 9:22PM.

[63] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, para 2.4.10(a)–(c).

[64] National Judicial Council, Guidelines for Court Sittings and Related Matters During the COVID-19 Period (May 2020), para E10(c)–(d).

[65] Greatness (52).

[66] ibid.

[67] MS Otu, OA Olugasa, LD James, ‘Estate Administration and Bank Compliance in Nigeria: Lessons from the Common Law and Hybrid Jurisidctions’Batulis Civil Law Review (2026) (7) (2) 163 – 181.

[68] OO Adesuyi, ‘AI-Enabled Interoperability in Nigeria’s Public Sector: Evaluating the Role of X – Road Digital Infrastructure’ American Journal of Artificial Intelligence (2026) (10) (2).

[69] FA Kenebara, ‘Digital Era Implications and Intelligence Management in Organisational Reforms: The Judicial Systems in Nigeria’(2026) accessed from < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/406970914_Digital_era_implications_and_intelligence_management_in_organizational_reforms_The_judicial_systems_in_Nigeria> on 2 September 2026 at 8:58AM.

[70] ibid.

[71] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 2.5, 4.2–4.6 and 5.1–5.6.

[72] JG Frynas, ‘Problems of Access to Courts in Nigeria: Results of a Survey of Legal Practitioners’ Social & Legal Studies (2001) (10) (3) 397 – 419.

[73] UV Obi, ‘Virtual Proceedings – Pros and Cons’(2020) accessed from < https://alliancelawfirm.ng/virtual-proceedings-pros-and-cons/> on 2 September 2026 at 9:05AM.

[74] CFRN, S 36 (1); National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 3.1–3.6.

[75] EO Joy, E – governance and Transparency in the Rivers State Judiciary, 2014 – 2025’International Journal of Political Science and Governance (2026) (8) (6).

[76] ibid.

[77] W Staskiewicz and T Stawecki, ‘Legal Databases and their Functions in the Process of Interpreting and Applying the Law’ Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej (2012) (4) (1) 84 – 105.

[78] Nduka (n 38).

[79] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 2.4.10(a)–(c) and 3.1–3.6.

[80] M Ramos – Maqueda, ‘The Data Revolution in Justice’ World Development (2025) (186).

[81] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 4.1–4.6 and 5.1–5.6.

[82] DO Anike, Effective Strategies for Managing Records in Contemporary Organisations’ Journal of Teaching. Learning & Curriculum (2025) (1) (1) 1 – 19.

[83] N Ilchyshyn, ‘Impact of Digitalisation on the Justice System: Challenges of Administrative Justice’ Social & Legal Studies (2025) accessed from < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396107606_Impact_of_digitalisation_on_the_justice_system_Challenges_of_administrative_justice

[84] CFRN, SS 6 and 17 (2) (e); National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 1.1–1.11.

[85] Dikko & Mahmoud & Co, ‘Access to Justice in Times of Pandemic: A Discussion on Covid – 19 Practice Directions in Nigeria’(2020) accessed from < https://dikkoandmahmoud.com/access-to-justice-in-times-of-pandemic-a-discussion-on-covid-19-court-practice-directions-in-nigeria/> on 2 September 2026 at 10:10AM.

[86] I Djuraev, A Baratov, S Khujayev, & Others, ‘The Impact of Digitalisation on Legal System in Developing Countries’Qubahan Academic Journal (2025) (5) (1) 81 – 117.

[87] Ramos – Maqueda (n 80).

[88] SI Mansoor, SA Shah, and SA Wani, ‘’Digital Forensics and Chain of Custody: Safeguarding the Integrity and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Legal Proceedings’ in (eds) T Nengomasha, Legal and Regulatory Perspectives on Electronic Records as Evidence (IGI Global Scientific Publishing 2025) 191 – 218.

[89] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, paras 2.4.10(a)–(c), 4.6 and 5.1–5.6.

[90] T Abdulkareem, ‘Automation of Court Processes in the Administration of Justice in Nigeria: Prospects and Challenges’ Paper Presented at the 8^th Adebayo Adelodun & CO (2026) accessed from < https://www.researchgate.net/publication/404067382_Automation_of_Court_Processes_in_the_Administration_of_Justice_in_Nigeria_Prospects_and_Challenges> on 2 September 2026 at 9:05PM.

[91] ibid.

[92] F Borgesano, A De Maio, P Laghi and Others, Ártificial Intelligence and Justice: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Perspectives on Justice 5.0’European Journal of Innovation Management (2025) (28) (11).

[93] Rapuluchukwu Ernest Nduka, ‘The Ethical Limits of Artificial Intelligence use by Lawyers and Judges: A Nigerian Perspective with Comparative Analysis’ Awka Capital Bar Journal (2026) (4) (2) 108.

[94] SM Okeji, JO Adedoyin – Raji, and YI Isa ‘Legal Frameworks for the Implementation of Electronic Governance in Nigeria and Matters Arising’ Environmental Technology and Science Journal (2024) (15) (2) 150 – 155.

[95] ibid.

[96] Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, ss 24–27.

[97] Okeke (n 23).

[98] Evidence Act 2011, S 84.

[99] Okeke (n 23).

[100] The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015.

[101] Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.

[102] S Ahmed, ‘Online Courts and Private and Public Aspects of Open Justice: Enhancing Access to Court or Violating the Right to Privacy?’ The Age of Human Rights Journal (2023) accessed from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370508823_Online_Courts_and_Private_and_Public_Aspects_of_Open_Justice_Enhancing_Access_to_Court_or_Violating_the_Right_to_Privacy> on 3 September 2026 at 8:22AM.

[103] Nduka (n 93).

[104] O Ikuforji, and M Adeboye, ‘Justice in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: is Nigeria’s Evidence Act Adequate for AI-Generated Evidence?’(2026) Accessed from < https://oal.law/justice-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence-is-nigerias-evidence-act-adequate-for-ai-generated-evidence-2/> on 3 September 2026 at 8:36AM.

[105] CFRN, S 36(1).

[106] R Lima da Costa, FC Lunardi, and T Guimaraes, ‘Virtual Hearings, Efficiency, and Access to Justice: A Lawyers’ Perception Survey’ Revista Direito gv (2026) (22) (2614).

[107] Okeke (n 23).

[108] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, para 2.4.7 (judicial education in ICT and electronic legal research) and para 2.4.10(a)–(c) (ICT and electronic/digital recording and transcription).

[109] Sule, Olorunyomi, Ajah, and Usman (n 44).

[110] Ilchyshyn (n 83).

[111] National Judicial Council, National Judicial Policy, para 2.4.7 (judicial education in ICT and electronic legal research) and para 2.4.10(a)–(c) (ICT and electronic/digital recording and transcription).

Follow Our WhatsApp Channel ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials

Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation

______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence

Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via: 0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888 Website: www.alexandernigeria.com

______________________________________________________________________