Limited hearings, long adjournments, and restricted access to the courtrooms are some of the major effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of justice in Nigeria. These issues have changed judges’ and lawyers’ attitudes towards the use of technology. Only very few cases have been heard or filed remotely, but several legal frameworks have been adopted to make them work. The journey to full adoption will be slow but it has already started.

Pandemic issues

Some of the ways the pandemic has affected dispute resolution in Nigeria are:

• Long adjournments – in response to the pandemic, several heads of courts, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria, have issued practice directions directing judges and magistrates to cut down on cases listed for hearing in a day. This has caused several cases to be rescheduled and adjourned for a longer period.
• Hearings of urgent cases only – several practice directions only allow face-to-face hearing of time-bound and criminal cases. Unlike before the pandemic when several cases were listed for hearing each day, only a few cases have been heard since the lockdown. Many urgent and criminal cases were either not heard or heard late. In Lagos State, most magistrate courts were closed. Only a few magistrates were sitting every other day for three hours, hearing remand and bail applications on certain offences. This has caused a build-up of cases due for hearing.
• Access to courtrooms – like most public places, access to courtrooms was restricted. In some courts, only two lawyers were granted access per party.

Virtual court hearings

The most remarkable development since the pandemic in dispute resolution in Nigeria is not the virtual court hearing itself, but the change of attitude towards it. It was almost unthinkable before the pandemic as major developments in administration of justice in Nigeria were mainly in substantive and procedural laws. Little or no technological development had been recorded in the delivery of justice. The pandemic created a problem that could not be solved without the adoption of technology. While some still regard virtual hearings as unachievable, many lawyers and judges have embraced the need for a drastic change, which has led to urgent adoption of practice directions regulating virtual hearings.

However, a constitutional impediment soon threw the effort into crisis. Many lawyers and judges maintained that virtual hearings impeded access to justice, which is a breach of the Nigerian Constitution. The Supreme Court appears to have settled the issue when it confirmed, without ruling on any active case, that virtual hearings are constitutional. This has spurred the drive for their adoption.

Despite this, only a few proceedings have been conducted remotely – namely two criminal judgments. Several problems still need to be solved before full adoption. They include availability of appropriate facilities in court, and training of judges, lawyers and court officials. With the change of attitude, it may not be long before those hurdles are removed.

Electronic filing

Electronic filing and virtual hearings are two sides of the same coin. There is little or no point having one without the other. Courts, such as the High Courts of Lagos State and Rivers State, had been working for some time before the pandemic on platforms for electronic filing. Like many other things, the pandemic sped up the process. Both states have since launched their platforms.

Lawyers are, however, skeptical about adopting this innovation. The new platforms were developed from scratch and specifically for different courts. The platforms have not proved to many lawyers that all existing rules of evidence, such as oath taking, have been complied with. While there has been a great awareness and change of attitude towards innovations, there has not been any significant adoption of electronic filing by stakeholders.

Service of court documents

Before the pandemic, there were few court rules that recognized electronic service of documents. There was a campaign led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria on the use of dedicated email addresses by all lawyers for service of court documents. Several practice directions issued since the pandemic now recognize electronic service, even using mobile instant messaging applications. This has since gained widespread adoption by lawyers.

Other challenges

There are still some grey areas that should be addressed. While several practice directions waived penalties for late filing due to the lockdown, no law has been passed to extend limitation periods. There are also no judicial pronouncements on how hard deadlines in statutes would be dealt with. Some statutory steps that parties should have taken were prevented by the lockdown or limited access to the court. In some instances, the courts have the discretion to grant a time extension. But there are other instances when the application for time extensions should have been made before the time ran out. This includes a claim form that had been taken out but not served before it expired during the lockdown.

By Muyiwa Ogungbenro (Partner), Tobechi Ogazi (Associate), Tolulope Ige (Associate), Olukemi Owolabi (Associate) and Esther Okoro (Associate), Olajide Oyewole LLP.