By Dr. Michael Tidi

Nigeria’s justice system is under increasing pressure. Case backlogs continue to grow, proceedings are prolonged by years, court records are frequently difficult to locate, and public confidence in judicial outcomes is steadily declining. It is against this background that the recent remarks of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere Ekun, deserve careful consideration.

At the 2026 Strategic Retreat of the Committee of Chief Registrars of Nigeria held in Abuja on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, the CJN delivered a clear message. The continued reliance on paper-based court administration is no longer sustainable. She stressed that the greater adoption of technology, including digital tools and judicial automation, is essential to improving efficiency, transparency, and access to justice. Technology should be seen not as a disruption but as an enabler of judicial excellence.

In a society where financial services, taxation, and public records are increasingly digitised, the judiciary remains one of the few critical institutions still dependent on manual processes. This gap has significant implications for efficiency, transparency, and access to justice.

Technology has become integral to effective court administration. Digital filing systems, electronic case management, and virtual hearings improve record keeping, reduce delays, and limit opportunities for administrative interference. A justice system that cannot reliably track its own cases or safeguard its records inevitably struggles to meet the constitutional requirement of timely adjudication.

The constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing within a reasonable time under Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) is not a mere aspiration. It is a binding obligation. A justice system that relies on paper-based administration, which breeds delay, inefficiency and uncertainty, undermines this constitutional right. The very purpose of the courts is to provide timely and accessible adjudication, and the persistence of manual processes frustrates this foundational promise.

The need for reform is not merely administrative. It is also fundamentally about legitimacy. The maxim that justice delayed is justice denied is not mere rhetoric; it is a principle deeply embedded in the common law tradition. Lord Denning often emphasised that the courts exist to deliver justice with speed and certainty. Yet in Nigeria, litigants remain trapped in procedural limbo, waiting years for a matter to be heard. As Lord Bingham of Cornhill famously observed, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. A system that is opaque and unpredictable will, over time, lose the confidence of the very citizens it is meant to serve. Digital tools can enhance transparency by making case information accessible, enabling accountability, and reducing the opportunities for manipulation.

Manual systems also impose real costs on litigants. Physical files can be misplaced or delayed. Information about case status often requires repeated court appearances. These inefficiencies disproportionately affect ordinary citizens, particularly those outside major urban centres, for whom access to justice becomes expensive and uncertain.

The impact of systemic delay is not merely theoretical. By way of illustration, I act for a client whose appeal has been pending before the Supreme Court since 2015, predating my call to the Nigerian Bar. When the matter was listed for hearing in December 2025, it was adjourned to 2028. A thirteen-year timeline for a single case raises serious questions about whether the promise of justice within a reasonable time is being fulfilled.

Other jurisdictions facing similar pressures have pursued gradual but deliberate digital reforms. In the United Kingdom, electronic filing and digital case management are now routine. India has implemented nationwide e-court platforms that allow online filing and virtual hearings across its vast judicial system. Kenya has expanded e-filing and remote proceedings with measurable improvements in efficiency. Singapore’s judiciary operates an integrated digital framework that prioritises speed, accessibility, and accountability.

These experiences show that digital justice systems are not experimental or incompatible with common law traditions. Rather, they are practical responses to the demands of modern litigation. Nigeria can adapt these models to its own context, starting with basic reforms such as electronic registries, online case tracking, and expanded use of virtual hearings.

Concerns about infrastructure and capacity, while legitimate, are not insurmountable. Nigeria already sustains nationwide digital platforms in banking, telecommunications, and identity management. With appropriate investment and training, similar progress is achievable within the judiciary.

The Chief Justice’s emphasis on court registrars is particularly significant. Registrars play a central role in court administration, and meaningful reform will depend on their engagement and competence. Digital literacy and accountability should therefore become integral to judicial administration.

Ultimately, the issue extends beyond efficiency. Delays, lost records, and administrative bottlenecks affect the quality and credibility of justice itself. A system that struggles to deliver timely outcomes risks undermining public trust and the rule of law.

Justice Kekere Ekun’s intervention highlights a necessary transition. Digital tools will not replace judicial reasoning or discretion, but they can support a system that is more transparent, accessible, and responsive.

As other jurisdictions have shown, modernising court administration is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for a justice system that meets contemporary expectations.

—Dr. Tidi is a legal practitioner, scholar, and public affairs analyst, writes  from Abuja.