By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA— In November 2022, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, declared Nigerians, especially the political class, as the most litigious people on earth.

He said the barrage of cases flooding the various courtrooms continued to put the judiciary under immense pressure.

According to Justice Ariwoola: “In every little disagreement, we rush to court and in every lost case, we rush to appeal even up to the Supreme Court, no matter how little the issue might be. That has obviously accounted for the several appeals pending in the Supreme Court.

“Though we receive scathing criticisms from members of the public over our over-bloated docket, we are neither in any position to regulate case inflow to the court nor have the supernatural powers to attend to all in one-fell-swoop.

“We have said it repeatedly that ordinarily, most appeals should be allowed to end at the Court of Appeal, but such constitutional provision is yet to be enacted so we have no blame in it.”

The erstwhile CJN’s observations amplified the need for an amendment of the constitution—not only to strengthen the numerical strength of the bench at all levels of courts, but most importantly, to stop interlocutory appeals from making their way into the Supreme Court.

Undoubtedly, a major problem plaguing the country today is the mounting backlog of cases awaiting judicial attention.

As of the last count, there were over 243, 253 cases pending before the various superior courts.

These cases, reported by the Federal High Court, Court of Appeal, and State High Courts, comprised 199,747 civil and 43,506 criminal matters.

This figure excludes the Supreme Court and lower courts like Magistrates’ Courts. 

While flagging off the new legal year, the current CJN, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, revealed that as of September 29,  2025, the Supreme Court   considered a total of 2,280 cases comprising both motions and appeals.

“Of these, 1,720 were motions broken down into 1,025 Civil, 488 Criminal, and 27 Sharia-related matters.

“The Court also entertained 560 appeals, broken down into 352 Civil, 180 Criminal, 6 Political, 15 Sharia, and 7 Originating Summons. From these matters, a total of 369 judgments were delivered,” she added. 

In the same vein, the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, disclosed that as of October 31, 2025, the appellate court had about 31,618 appeals and 3,382 motions pending.

“During the 2024/2025 Legal Year, the Court received 5,225 Appeals and 9,906 Motions across its 20 Divisions. 

“In the same period, we successfully determined 3,193 Appeals and heard 5,623 Motions. Of the Appeals concluded, 2,503 were dismissed while 690 were allowed,” Justice Dongban-Mensem added. 

In his assessment, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, disclosed that at the end of the 2023/2024 Legal Year, a total of 161,999 cases were pending and carried over to the 2024/2025 Legal Year.

According to him, within the period, 19, 925 cases were filed, which brought the total number of pending cases to 181,924.

“From this number, a total of 16, 019 were disposed of, leaving 165,905 pending cases. The breakdown of the 16,019 cases disposed of is as follows: Civil cases: 3,113; Criminal cases: 5,818; Motions: 3,724; and Fundamental Human Rights cases: 3,364, bringing it to a total of 16,019 cases.

“Therefore, a total of 44,650 Civil Cases, 44,078 Criminal Cases, 46, 228 Motions and 30, 949 Fundamental Rights Enforcement applications, remained pending at the end of the last Legal Year.”

Even though the various court heads patted themselves on the back for doing well in the face of the enormous workload the courts were faced with, they still admitted that more needed to be done. 

While addressing judges of the Federal High Court on December 15, 2025, the CJN admitted that traditional courtroom methods alone could no longer sustain the weight of matters pending for adjudication.

She said: “Delay in the administration of justice remains one of the most persistent concerns expressed by both the Bar and the public.

“While some delays are structural, many are preventable. A judge must not regard himself or herself as a passive moderator of proceedings.

“The courtroom requires guidance, firmness, and purposeful control. Effective case management is not optional; it is central to judicial responsibility.

Growing workload

“Accordingly, the National Judicial Council will continue to strengthen oversight of case progression, not as a tool of intimidation, but as a means of supporting institutional discipline and improving justice delivery.” 

The CJN noted that the workload of the judiciary continued to grow, not only in volume but in complexity.

“Globalisation, technology-driven crimes, financial innovations, cross-border commercial disputes, terrorism-related matters, and evolving regulatory frameworks now define much of the Court’s docket.

“These realities demand new skills, firmer case management, and rapid judicial adaptation.

Digitisation

“Digitisation must, therefore, move from being viewed as a project-based intervention to a core institutional priority. Virtual hearings, e-filing, electronic case tracking, secure record management, and functional ICT support are no longer optional innovations; they are indispensable instruments of modern justice delivery.

“Digitisation enhances not only speed, but accountability, predictability, and public confidence. When court information is accurate, timely, and easily accessible, uncertainty is reduced and trust is strengthened,” she added. 

There are various alternative dispute resolution mechanisms across the country that could conveniently be leveraged, with a view to freeing the courts of the incessant case-overload.

That notwithstanding, given the volume of litigation pouring into courtrooms daily, all heads of court have called for the engagement of more judges to strengthen judicial capacity and improve overall court efficiency.

Amendments

It was, therefore, not surprising when President Bola Tinubu recently wrote to the Senate seeking amendment of both the Federal High Court Act and the Court of Appeal Act.

President Tinubu sought an amendment to increase the statutory number of justices of the Federal High Court from 70 to 90.

He also sought an amendment to the Court of Appeal Act to increase the number of Court of Appeal Justices from 70 to 110.

Section 1(2) of the Federal High Court Act, Cap. F12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, originally provided for a maximum of 50 judges for the court, which has expansive jurisdiction and an enormous workload. 

It is a no-brainer that the proposed amendments will strengthen the institutional capacity, efficiency, and effectiveness of both the trial court and the appellate court.

On the Federal High Court amendment proposal, President Tinubu, in his letter, said: “It is noted that the court now bears a substantial and expanding responsibility for the prosecution of terrorism-related offences,transnational organised crimes and other matters touching directly on national security.

“The Senate is invited to note that a proposed increase of the Federal High Court judges from 70 to 90 will significantly improve the judge to client ratio, enhance the speed and quality of adjudication 

“It will allow for greater judicial specialisation in technically demanding areas such as terrorism,financial crimes, taxation, intellectual property and maritime law.

“In view of the foregoing, I hereby present the Federal High Court Amendment Bill 2025 and trust that the Senate will consider the passage of the bill expeditiously.”

Concerning the Court of Appeal, Tinubu stressed that the amendment would further restructure provisions relating to the ranking of justices of the Court, especially the ranking of the President of the Court and the determination of seniority among justices.

He added that the proposed amendment will lead to the modernisation of the court’s proceedings through the introduction of virtual hearing. 

“The bill provides for the conduct of proceedings of the Court of Appeal through electronic and audio, establishment of Alternative Dispute Resolution Center (ADRC).

“The Court of Appeal bill seeks to establish an Alternative Dispute Resolution Center within the Court of Appeal, where appellate matters may be referred for settlement,” he added.

Besides, President Tinubu stated that the amendment would also improve professional efficiency and legal certainty in appellate practices, saying: “This is in alignment with contemporary legal and institutional standards.

“The bill also seeks to update terminology and definitions within the principal act, including the recognition of virtual hearings and modern correctional standards and nomenclatures.

“It seeks to consolidate interpretative provisions to ensure clarity, consistency and alignment with current legal and institutional framework.”

According to him, the amendments sought were timely and necessary as they would effectively tackle growing demands on the appellate justice system and also reduce delays in the determination of cases.

He said the amendments would strengthen access to justice for litigants across the federation and reinforce public confidence in the Judiciary.

Despite how desirable the proposed amendments are, a critical issue at the core of the dwindling public confidence in the judiciary that also requires attention is the need for attitudinal change for judges. 

Institutional integrity

As the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, through its President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, rightly noted, there is need for the judiciary to improve on its “institutional integrity.

“Recent patterns have created troubling perceptions that strike at the core of judicial legitimacy,” the association noted, adding that “one of the deeply distressing frustrations endured daily by litigants, lawyers, and ordinary citizens is the unpredictability of court sittings.”

It said: “Every day, Nigerians rise before dawn, navigate long distances, brave insecurity on the highways, spend scarce resources on transportation, and appear in Court with the hope that their matter will finally move forward, only to be met with the disheartening announcement that ‘the Court is not sitting’, ‘your case will not go on, so take a date’, or even waiting for hours only for one’s matter to be adjourned off record.

“For many, this means wasted time, wasted resources, renewed anxiety about the progress of their case or loss of confidence in the ability of the court to deliver timely justice.

“More critically, this experience chips away public faith in the judicial system. Justice that is unpredictable in its administration risks becoming inaccessible in its outcome.

“The constitutional guarantee of fair hearing within a reasonable time, enshrined in the 1999 Constitution, cannot be achieved where litigants repeatedly encounter avoidable, unexplained disruptions,” the NBA added. 

As President Tinubu takes the bull by the horns, the nagging question remains: will the proposed amendments speed up justice? Only time will tell!

Source; Vanguard News Nigeria