Senior lawyers and human rights advocates have raised fresh concerns that the rising cost of litigation in Nigeria, combined with prolonged court proceedings and persistent difficulties in enforcing judgments, is steadily shutting poor and vulnerable citizens out of the justice system.
Dr Abiodun Layonu, SAN, human rights lawyer Chief Malachy Ugwummadu, and rights lawyer Ige Asemudara separately raised the alarm, warning that access to justice in Nigeria can no longer be assessed purely in terms of lawyers’ fees, but must also account for the time, delay and enforcement hurdles that make litigation an increasingly expensive undertaking for ordinary citizens.
Layonu said the cost of litigation had risen sharply in line with the broader increase in the cost of living and doing business in Nigeria, affecting court filing fees, legal representation and other litigation-related expenses. He noted, however, that court rules still offer some cushion for indigent litigants, including provisions that allow financially disadvantaged persons to apply to sue in forma pauperis, subject to meeting the conditions set by the relevant rules of court.
He lamented that Nigeria’s once-functional legal aid system, which was designed to support citizens who could not afford legal representation, particularly in criminal defence and some civil matters, has largely fallen into disuse. According to him, the framework for legal aid still exists in Nigeria’s statutes, but is “practically not really functioning” in the way it was originally intended to protect indigent litigants from being shut out of the courts by poverty.
Layonu also pointed to the growing shift toward electronic filing of court processes as a further source of financial pressure on litigants and lawyers, noting that while digitisation of court processes is a welcome development, it requires access to scanners, photocopiers and other tools that add to the overall cost of litigation. He urged that any reform of the justice sector take into account the financial realities of ordinary Nigerians, so that the drive toward modernisation does not end up discouraging poor citizens from approaching the courts.
Ugwummadu, for his part, argued that the true cost of justice in Nigeria extends well beyond legal fees and filing charges to include the time spent pursuing a case, bureaucratic delays, and the practical difficulties litigants face in enforcing judgments once they are obtained. He noted that prolonged litigation often erodes a case from within, as witnesses in criminal matters may die, relocate, or become reluctant to testify after years of delay, while the transfer or death of a presiding judge can force a matter to start entirely afresh.
He identified enforcement of judgments, particularly those obtained against law enforcement agencies, as one of the most difficult aspects of Nigeria’s justice system. Ugwummadu questioned how a judgment obtained against the police for rights violations could be effectively enforced when the same police are often required to assist in enforcing court orders generally. He explained that enforcement is typically carried out through the sheriffs of the court, sometimes with the support of law enforcement agencies, a process he said becomes considerably more complicated where those same agencies are the judgment debtors. He added that the challenge is compounded further where a judgment obtained in one jurisdiction has to be formally registered in another before it can be enforced there.
Offering a different perspective, Asemudara distinguished between categories of litigants when assessing the fairness of legal fees. He argued that persons involved in election petitions are typically politicians or political actors with the financial capacity to retain legal representation, and that lawyers handling such matters, which are often complex, demanding and time-intensive, are entitled to charge fees reflecting the volume of work involved. He said the same principle applies broadly to commercial litigation, where fees may reasonably vary with the complexity of the dispute and the resources required from the legal team.
However, Asemudara stressed that greater sensitivity should be shown to ordinary citizens seeking to enforce fundamental rights or defend themselves in criminal proceedings, arguing that legal fees in such matters should be minimal or moderate, particularly for persons who are demonstrably unable to afford representation. He called on regulatory bodies within the legal profession to develop clearer mechanisms to ensure that vulnerable citizens are not denied legal representation or fair hearing purely on account of poverty, while also affirming that lawyers are entitled to charge fees that allow them to sustain a reasonable standard of living.
Background
Concerns over the cost and accessibility of justice in Nigeria have persisted for years, with successive legal aid reforms struggling to keep pace with the rising cost of litigation and an overstretched court system. Nigeria’s Legal Aid Council was established to provide free legal services to indigent persons, particularly in criminal matters, but practitioners have long noted that funding and capacity constraints have limited its practical reach.
The enforcement of judgments against government agencies, including the police, has also remained a recurring flashpoint in Nigeria’s human rights litigation landscape, with rights groups frequently highlighting cases where successful litigants struggle for years to obtain compliance with court orders. Legal professionals and civil society organisations continue to press for reforms that would streamline court procedures, strengthen legal aid funding, and improve compliance with judgments, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights.
Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/legalnigeria/