In Nigeria, justice is not just delayed. It is increasingly contested, contradicted, and, in some cases, dangerously close to losing public belief altogether.
From judgments that collide with one another to cases that outlive the litigants themselves, the country’s legal system is facing a credibility strain that insiders now openly acknowledge. And in a rare moment of candour from the nation’s highest bench, Hon. Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC, has laid bare an uncomfortable truth: the crisis runs deeper than public perception, and those entrusted to uphold the law may also be complicit in its weakening.
Speaking at the 5th Annual Lecture of Akaraiwe & Associates in Enugu, His Lordship did not mince words. The dysfunction within Nigeria’s justice system, he argued, is real, systemic, and jointly produced by both judges and lawyers.
A System Buckling Under Its Own Weight
At the heart of Justice Agim’s intervention is a stark warning—Nigeria’s legal system is at risk of losing its effectiveness, and with it, its legitimacy.
In theory, the law is society’s stabilizing force: the guarantor of order, protector of rights, and arbiter of disputes. In practice, however, Agim painted a picture of a system weighed down by inefficiency, delay, and internal contradictions.
Cases, he revealed, routinely stretch across decades; sometimes taking 15 to 25 years to reach final determination. For many Nigerians, justice delayed is not just justice denied, it is justice completely extinguished.
The causes are both structural and behavioural.
Lawyers, he argued, frequently deploy tactics that stall proceedings: endless adjournments, frivolous objections, and strategic interlocutory appeals designed not to resolve disputes, but to delay them. Courts, on their part, often enable this culture by granting adjournments too easily, failing to control proceedings, and sometimes delaying judgments far beyond constitutionally mandated timelines.
The result is a justice system where time itself becomes a weapon.
When the Law Contradicts Itself
Perhaps more troubling is the growing phenomenon of conflicting judicial decisions, including at the highest levels of the judiciary. In a system built on precedent, consistency is everything. Yet Agim highlighted a disturbing trend: courts issuing rulings that contradict earlier decisions on identical legal questions; sometimes without formally departing from established precedent. The consequences are far-reaching.
Legal uncertainty makes it nearly impossible for individuals and businesses to predict outcomes or plan their affairs. It fuels more litigation, encourages forum shopping, and erodes confidence in the judiciary as a stable and reliable institution.
To address this, the Supreme Court has adopted a controversial but pragmatic solution: where its decisions conflict, the most recent judgment prevails. But even this “superiority rule” underscores a deeper problem. One that continues to haunt Nigeria’s legal architecture.
The Blame Game—and the Battle for Public Trust
In recent years, public criticism of the judiciary has intensified, particularly around politically sensitive cases. Social media, press conferences, and public commentary have become battlegrounds where court decisions are dissected—and often condemned. Agim’s response is both defensive and critical.
He dismissed sweeping claims of judicial corruption as largely unsubstantiated, arguing that many allegations are driven by disappointed litigants and amplified by legal practitioners themselves. In his view, a troubling pattern has emerged. Lawyers publicly attacking judgments they have not even read, framing adverse decisions as evidence of corruption, and mobilizing public opinion against the courts. The damage, he warned, is profound.
Yet Agim did not absolve the courts entirely. He acknowledged that certain judicial practices, such as disregard for precedent, excessive delays, and questionable procedural decisions, can fuel suspicion and reinforce negative perceptions. In other words, perception and reality are feeding off each other in a dangerous cycle.
Inside the Machinery of Breakdown
Justice Agim’s lecture offers rare insight into how dysfunction actually takes root within the system. From forum shopping, where lawyers deliberately file cases in jurisdictions with no connection to the dispute, to the filing of multiple suits over the same issue, the system is often manipulated in ways that generate conflicting orders and institutional embarrassment.
In one cited example, the Supreme Court condemned both a lawyer and a trial judge for entertaining a case that had already been settled by precedent, labeling the conduct unethical and a violation of judicial duty.
Similarly, the widespread abuse of preliminary objections, used to stall substantive hearings, has turned procedural safeguards into instruments of delay.
Even more striking is the economic impact of these delays. In one case, a claim worth over ₦98 million lost most of its real value after being tied up in litigation for over a decade—illustrating how prolonged justice processes can render outcomes meaningless.
The Fragile Independence of the Judiciary
Beyond procedure and perception lies a deeper issue: judicial independence. This former Chief Justice of The Gambia framed independence as both external and internal. Externally, he asserted, judges must be free from interference; not just from government, but from lawyers, litigants, and even colleagues. Internally, they must possess the discipline, integrity, and moral clarity to resist influence.
Without both, independence becomes an illusion.
He warned that growing pressure from legal practitioners and public opinion may now pose one of the most serious threats to judicial autonomy, raising difficult questions about how courts can remain impartial in an increasingly charged environment.
A System at a Crossroads
A weak legal system, he warned, does not merely inconvenience citizens; it threatens the stability of the entire state. Without a functioning rule of law, governance falters, rights erode, and public order becomes fragile.
Yet the solution, he insists, is not beyond reach.
It lies in a return to fundamentals: ethical lawyering, disciplined judging, respect for precedent, and a shared commitment to justice as a public good, not a tactical game.
