TV
The Covid-19 pandemic has forced the reality of a world system
that has been forever changed in its wake. However, even before the
shutdown of the Nigerian judiciary by Hon. Justice Tanko Muhammad,
CJN, the era of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court assigning
dates in cases up to three years ahead was no longer
sustainable.
The situation had the potential of taking food off the table of
most Nigerian lawyers if it went unchecked. The Presidential
Enabling Business Environment Council had
identified ‘contract enforcement’ as a major indicator
for Nigeria’s business environment as contained in the World Bank
Ease of Doing Business in Nigeria, 2018 Report. Thus, it had become
increasingly evident that an efficient judicial system is necessary
for promoting a sustainable socio-economic environment, as well as
a society governed by rule of law in which other development
initiatives (including poverty reduction, education, and gender
equity) can flourish.
Singapore, which is also a common law jurisdiction, was on a
similar trajectory of an inefficient justice administration system
some three decades ago. In September 1990, it was estimated that
the Supreme Court of Singapore required five years to hear all of
its pending matters. It was that reality (not Covid-19) that
spurred the beginning of a new dawn in the Singaporean judiciary.
Singapore is now a case study of an efficient judicial system that
other countries are learning from through its innovative use of
technology in justice administration.
Coming back home, the Chief Judge of Lagos State has introduced
practice directions to guide remote hearings as a way of preventing
the total ‘deadness’ of the courts during the statewide lockdown.
In practical terms, Hon. Justice Kazeem Alogba really had no other
option than to flow with the tide of these peculiar times. Also,
the Borno State judiciary has even gone ahead to conduct a court
hearing online, which was the first in Nigeria’s history. However,
limited online court hearings had been ongoing at the Federal High
Court in Lagos wherein parties and witnesses join court proceedings
online, while the judge and counsel were in court. That being the
case, it will now seem that the new reality is that Court is not
just a place, but also a service. As a service which it is
increasingly manifesting as, how do we ensure that the dispensation
of justice over the internet does not become a situation of
‘justice conducted online is justice compromised’. An abundance of
possible scenarios present itself, and I will briefly comment on a
few.
How does a presiding judge ensure that he is on the same page as
regards documents being referred to by Counsel during an online
court proceeding? This might require the judge having his case
files (docket) made available as soft copies, securely uploaded,
accessible online, and properly streamlined to enable the judge to
work seamlessly online. In this regard, the judge may have to do a
quick search using keywords to find a document being cited by
Counsel. The necessary corollary is that the court’s online case
management system has to be impregnable for bad actors such as
hackers who might be engaged by litigants to compromise an online
hearing, steal vital documents, ensure the adjournment of a
court sitting, or who may even do so to show their digital prowess.
Other potential issues that may arise include accessibility to be
granted to the judge’s assistants who will also need to use the
case management system in assisting the judge. This will have to be
implemented in such a way that there is always a digital trace for
whoever accesses the back end system, whether the judge or his
assistants as this will be a veritable tool to prevent internal
compromise. Another angle is the possibility of conducting criminal
matters online which would require equipping prisons and other
detention centers with facilities for online hearings. The
effect of this would reduce the cost of bringing awaiting or
pending trial inmates to court.
However, online court proceedings being a new innovation in the
holistic usage being canvassed, it might be necessary to limit
online hearings to pre-trial matters for both civil and criminal
matters for a start. This is because of the peculiarity of the
trial process which thrives on the presiding judge being able to
assess the body language of witnesses and other nuances of the
courtroom trial. The potential developments are endless, but the
dividing line could be that all pre-trial matters are attended to
online, while trial proceedings are held in the courtroom. This
will undoubtedly help to decongest the courtrooms in line with the
social distancing guidelines of government which will be the new
way of life for the next foreseeable future. There is no doubt that
a comprehensive deployment of technology in justice administration
as being solicited will entail the provision of tools, training of
judges and judicial staff, as well as the usage of uniform
technological architecture in ensuring standardization in the
entire judicial system either at the state level or at the national
level.
Essentially, what online hearing of court proceedings must do is
to replicate justice administration system which has been designed
for people coming to the court building, improve on it, filter the
inefficiencies and ensure that the refined product or service is
available real-time to not only litigants and their Counsel, but
also to even curious members of the public such as journalists in a
way that the integrity of the system will not be compromised.
Anything short of that will not only serve to defeat the purpose of
conducting online hearings, but also a missed opportunity to
advance the workings of Nigeria’s justice administration.
The need to embrace modern technology must be considered beyond
just reacting to the Covid-19 pandemic, but also as an opportunity
to make the much needed robust improvements in the justice delivery
system. A situation whereby some lawyers are allowed to argue their
cases for 2-3 hours; while others are merely allowed to take
minuscule bites at the ‘cherry’ of being heard in court must be
addressed. In Singapore, the administration of justice
commands the price of seriousness and diligence from litigants as
well as their lawyers, and Nigeria can very well pluck a few leaves
from the initiatives introduced by the Singaporean Judiciary, some
of which are discussed below;
- Court hearing fees: Hearing fees were designed
to deter trials lasting beyond a certain number of days, and so the
first three hearing days for a suit are free, after which
prescribed fees would be paid to the court for hearing dates by
parties. Hearing fees are usually paid by the Plaintiff
or the party who applies for the hearing date. In limited
circumstances and upon application, Court Registrars have the power
to waive, refund, and/or postpone payment of hearing fees. - Apart from filing fees, an Appellant may be required to pay a
security deposit for the Respondent’s costs in an appeal as
this would discourage the filing of frivolous appeals.
I will like also like to proffer the monitoring and record of
time usage by Counsel during court proceedings. This will
ensure compliance with the time limit for trials and arguments
during proceedings. This will ensure that lawyers devise a strategy
to manage their ‘court allotted time’, while still presenting
their cases as best as possible, as compared to the current system
which wittingly or unwittingly allows lawyers to ‘waste’ the
precious time of the court, and thereby perpetually clogging the
wheel of justice in our dear country.
In conclusion, the deployment of technology in justice
dispensation in Nigeria has a huge potential; however, the
necessary partnerships and support infrastructure must be in place
for the technology to make the desired impact.
Gbenga Adebisi, Esq.
He is an Associate at the law firm of Femi Atoyebi & Co.
His email address is gkadebisi@gmail.com.
TV
The Covid-19 pandemic has forced the reality of a world system
that has been forever changed in its wake. However, even before the
shutdown of the Nigerian judiciary by Hon. Justice Tanko Muhammad,
CJN, the era of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court assigning
dates in cases up to three years ahead was no longer
sustainable.
The situation had the potential of taking food off the table of
most Nigerian lawyers if it went unchecked. The Presidential
Enabling Business Environment Council had
identified ‘contract enforcement’ as a major indicator
for Nigeria’s business environment as contained in the World Bank
Ease of Doing Business in Nigeria, 2018 Report. Thus, it had become
increasingly evident that an efficient judicial system is necessary
for promoting a sustainable socio-economic environment, as well as
a society governed by rule of law in which other development
initiatives (including poverty reduction, education, and gender
equity) can flourish.
Singapore, which is also a common law jurisdiction, was on a
similar trajectory of an inefficient justice administration system
some three decades ago. In September 1990, it was estimated that
the Supreme Court of Singapore required five years to hear all of
its pending matters. It was that reality (not Covid-19) that
spurred the beginning of a new dawn in the Singaporean judiciary.
Singapore is now a case study of an efficient judicial system that
other countries are learning from through its innovative use of
technology in justice administration.
Coming back home, the Chief Judge of Lagos State has introduced
practice directions to guide remote hearings as a way of preventing
the total ‘deadness’ of the courts during the statewide lockdown.
In practical terms, Hon. Justice Kazeem Alogba really had no other
option than to flow with the tide of these peculiar times. Also,
the Borno State judiciary has even gone ahead to conduct a court
hearing online, which was the first in Nigeria’s history. However,
limited online court hearings had been ongoing at the Federal High
Court in Lagos wherein parties and witnesses join court proceedings
online, while the judge and counsel were in court. That being the
case, it will now seem that the new reality is that Court is not
just a place, but also a service. As a service which it is
increasingly manifesting as, how do we ensure that the dispensation
of justice over the internet does not become a situation of
‘justice conducted online is justice compromised’. An abundance of
possible scenarios present itself, and I will briefly comment on a
few.
How does a presiding judge ensure that he is on the same page as
regards documents being referred to by Counsel during an online
court proceeding? This might require the judge having his case
files (docket) made available as soft copies, securely uploaded,
accessible online, and properly streamlined to enable the judge to
work seamlessly online. In this regard, the judge may have to do a
quick search using keywords to find a document being cited by
Counsel. The necessary corollary is that the court’s online case
management system has to be impregnable for bad actors such as
hackers who might be engaged by litigants to compromise an online
hearing, steal vital documents, ensure the adjournment of a
court sitting, or who may even do so to show their digital prowess.
Other potential issues that may arise include accessibility to be
granted to the judge’s assistants who will also need to use the
case management system in assisting the judge. This will have to be
implemented in such a way that there is always a digital trace for
whoever accesses the back end system, whether the judge or his
assistants as this will be a veritable tool to prevent internal
compromise. Another angle is the possibility of conducting criminal
matters online which would require equipping prisons and other
detention centers with facilities for online hearings. The
effect of this would reduce the cost of bringing awaiting or
pending trial inmates to court.
However, online court proceedings being a new innovation in the
holistic usage being canvassed, it might be necessary to limit
online hearings to pre-trial matters for both civil and criminal
matters for a start. This is because of the peculiarity of the
trial process which thrives on the presiding judge being able to
assess the body language of witnesses and other nuances of the
courtroom trial. The potential developments are endless, but the
dividing line could be that all pre-trial matters are attended to
online, while trial proceedings are held in the courtroom. This
will undoubtedly help to decongest the courtrooms in line with the
social distancing guidelines of government which will be the new
way of life for the next foreseeable future. There is no doubt that
a comprehensive deployment of technology in justice administration
as being solicited will entail the provision of tools, training of
judges and judicial staff, as well as the usage of uniform
technological architecture in ensuring standardization in the
entire judicial system either at the state level or at the national
level.
Essentially, what online hearing of court proceedings must do is
to replicate justice administration system which has been designed
for people coming to the court building, improve on it, filter the
inefficiencies and ensure that the refined product or service is
available real-time to not only litigants and their Counsel, but
also to even curious members of the public such as journalists in a
way that the integrity of the system will not be compromised.
Anything short of that will not only serve to defeat the purpose of
conducting online hearings, but also a missed opportunity to
advance the workings of Nigeria’s justice administration.
The need to embrace modern technology must be considered beyond
just reacting to the Covid-19 pandemic, but also as an opportunity
to make the much needed robust improvements in the justice delivery
system. A situation whereby some lawyers are allowed to argue their
cases for 2-3 hours; while others are merely allowed to take
minuscule bites at the ‘cherry’ of being heard in court must be
addressed. In Singapore, the administration of justice
commands the price of seriousness and diligence from litigants as
well as their lawyers, and Nigeria can very well pluck a few leaves
from the initiatives introduced by the Singaporean Judiciary, some
of which are discussed below;
- Court hearing fees: Hearing fees were designed
to deter trials lasting beyond a certain number of days, and so the
first three hearing days for a suit are free, after which
prescribed fees would be paid to the court for hearing dates by
parties. Hearing fees are usually paid by the Plaintiff
or the party who applies for the hearing date. In limited
circumstances and upon application, Court Registrars have the power
to waive, refund, and/or postpone payment of hearing fees. - Apart from filing fees, an Appellant may be required to pay a
security deposit for the Respondent’s costs in an appeal as
this would discourage the filing of frivolous appeals.
I will like also like to proffer the monitoring and record of
time usage by Counsel during court proceedings. This will
ensure compliance with the time limit for trials and arguments
during proceedings. This will ensure that lawyers devise a strategy
to manage their ‘court allotted time’, while still presenting
their cases as best as possible, as compared to the current system
which wittingly or unwittingly allows lawyers to ‘waste’ the
precious time of the court, and thereby perpetually clogging the
wheel of justice in our dear country.
In conclusion, the deployment of technology in justice
dispensation in Nigeria has a huge potential; however, the
necessary partnerships and support infrastructure must be in place
for the technology to make the desired impact.
Gbenga Adebisi, Esq.
He is an Associate at the law firm of Femi Atoyebi & Co.
His email address is gkadebisi@gmail.com.