Authored By: Esther Cletus
Obafemi Awolowo University
The Nigerian legal system is built on common law principles, inherited from British colonial rule, but relies heavily on the doctrine of stare decisis to ensure uniformity, predictability, and fairness in judicial decisions. This doctrine obliges lower courts to follow precedents set by higher courts, making access to case law essential for lawyers, litigants, judges, and scholars. However, the unavailability of recent judicial precedents, such as decisions from the last six to twelve months, on electronic platforms poses a serious systemic challenge. This issue hampers legal research, advocacy, and access to justice guaranteed under section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which provides for the right to a fair hearing.¹ While digital transformation is key to efficiency in the contemporary era, the Nigerian judiciary lags due to inadequate infrastructure, deficient policies, and scarce resources, resulting in delays of months or years before judgments are published online.
This essay uses empirical data, statutory provisions such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),² and comparative insights from the United Kingdom and South Africa to describe the problem. It highlights how the digital divide perpetuates inequality and violates human rights principles under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified by Nigeria.³ Post-COVID reforms have accelerated digitisation, but challenges like cybersecurity risks and lack of skills persist, limiting real-time accessibility. The absence of recent precedents undermines stare decisis and risks inconsistent rulings, exacerbating judicial inefficiencies.
SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
The unavailability of judicial precedents on electronic platforms manifests as persistent delays or a total lack of recently published judgments, rulings, transcripts, and appellate decisions on platforms such as the Nigerian Case Management System (NCMS), e-filing portals, and private aggregators like LawPavilion, Nigeria Weekly Law Report (NWLR) Online, LegalDigitalNG, and PrimSol. While these platforms are designed for digital access to case law, their precedents are often outdated, forcing users to rely on physical reports or informally obtained documents, which are inefficient and error prone. This inconsistency stems from incomplete digitisation protocols in the Evidence Act 2011, which addresses electronic evidence but lacks provisions for mandatory upload timelines.⁴ A 2025 study estimates that inefficiencies in paper based systems cost the judiciary 1.2 billion Naira annually. The economic impact is clear. Unlike well functioning systems in developed countries, Nigeria’s fragmented databases cause delays in precedent availability, weakening stare decisis and leading to inconsistent rulings.
The Nigerian judicial system comprises the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the National Judicial Council (NJC), which oversee policymaking, the courts handling judicial activities, and court officers supporting operations. The NJC’s 2020 guidelines for virtual proceedings marked progress, but gaps in accountability remain.⁵ Legal practitioners, through the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), advocate for reforms while navigating daily obstacles. A 2024 survey revealed that 60% of respondents found accessing resources challenging. The Federal Ministry of Justice supports measures through its 2025 digital transformation repositioning initiative, while Lagos State Judiciary and others implement pilot projects. Private platforms offer trial access for a fee, but the poor, who would otherwise have free access to e-platforms, are excluded, raising fairness concerns under section 17(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, which ensures equality of rights and opportunities before the law.⁶
The evolution of online platforms began before 2010 with print dominated systems and progressed through the Freedom of Information Act 2011, which mandates public record accessibility, a measure confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2025 as applicable nationwide.⁷ The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated change in April 2020, the CJN’s practice directions permitted virtual hearings, reducing backlogs by 20 to 30% in pilot states by 2024. As of 2025, initiatives include the Justice Ministry’s digital repositioning, NBA summits advocating court digitisation, and court clerks’ proposals for web based, case tracking systems. The Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in Lagos and judges’ commitment to digital rights via the Ikot Ekpene Declaration indicate progress. However, a 2025 study highlights incomplete and uncoordinated efforts as a major challenge, with delays in precedent availability stemming from the lack of a national scalable system. This crisis driven rather than strategic approach reveals weaknesses in sustaining momentum.
Human, systemic, and technological barriers persist. Infrastructural issues, such as power outages, unstable networks, and cybersecurity threats, delay uploads, as evidenced in 2025 reports. Only 40% of judicial staff are skilled in ICT, according to surveys, while manual certification processes add weeks to digitisation. Technological inequality exacerbates this: World Bank data disclose that millions in Nigeria lack internet access, with gender gaps in mobile phone access affecting legal engagement. Legally, the absence of mandatory timelines for case uploads under court rules allows discretion, unlike stricter foreign models. Socio-economically, 60% of rural lawyers report access issues, creating a feedback loop that hinders technology adoption. Corruption risks also emerge, as delayed access to information enables manipulation.
The landscape of access to judicial information remains uneven. While metropolitan centres like Lagos and Abuja benefit from systems like RivCoMIS and NCMS, rural northern regions lack access, as highlighted in digital divide reports. These disparities, driven by infrastructural limitations, reinforce socio-economic inequalities. Official case law is primarily disseminated through Abuja’s Supreme Court and appellate courts, but authoritative decisions often appear first on private databases rather than a unified, public facing government platform. This practice conflicts with constitutional commitments to uniformity and transparency, compounding unequal access. Globally, digital exclusion affects approximately 627 million people, and Nigeria’s judicial challenges exemplify this issue.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: GAPS AND FRAMEWORK
Direct Nigerian precedent addressing digital platform inaccessibility is limited, but related legal principles offer insights. Delays in justice administration amount to a denial of justice, a principle applicable to digital access barriers.⁸ The restrictive force of locus standi limits who may challenge judicial unavailability in court, though recent expansions under the Freedom of Information Act have mitigated this issue.⁹ The ECOWAS Court articulated the right to information, supporting broader access to court decisions, including digital records.¹⁰ The necessity of legal certainty and adherence to precedent is undermined if access to case law is lacking.¹¹ The principle of equality before the law is linked to digital access realities, highlighting new forms of exclusion.¹² These precedents reveal a need for judicial innovation, akin to progressive jurisprudence in foreign cases.¹³ Recent studies analysing Supreme Court judgment datasets (2023) reinforce the need to digitise and centralise records to align with global trends in judicial transparency.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Nigeria’s problems are more visible when compared with foreign models. There, in the United Kingdom, the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) gives free, almost real time, access to the decisions of all the superior courts. ¹⁴BAILII is financed by a combination of state support and donations and so it is an example of an open access system. ¹⁵Likewise, South Africa is operating the Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII), which makes sure that the judgments are uploaded on time and free access is provided. Such systems are not only the legal community’s, but they are also contributing to civic education by allowing the citizens to review the court decisions.
Whereas Nigeria’s dependency on privately owned,¹⁶ subscription based platforms like LawPavilion places such restrictions on access. Since there is no publicly funded equivalent to BAILII or SAFLII in Nigeria, lawyers and litigants have to either buy access or wait several months for the judgments to be published in printed reports. This practice deepens the divide, as only well-resourced lawyers in the cities can afford to have timely access. The comparative lesson is obvious: without centralized, government supported platforms, the promise of stare decisis loses its strength.
RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
Looking ahead, several steps are critical. First, a non-negotiable 48-hour timeframe for court document uploads is essential; delays in transparency are unjustifiable. Substantial investment in ICT training is crucial, with at least 80% of staff requiring genuine technical proficiency. On the infrastructure side, progress depends on robust public private partnerships. Committed financial and technical collaboration is necessary to meet modern demands. Freedom of Information Act laws must be enforced, not merely cited. Leveraging artificial intelligence for precedent analysis and applying online dispute resolution platforms could enhance efficiency if implemented thoughtfully. These are practical necessities. Finally, in 2025, persistent inaccessibility remains a serious obstacle. Reforms must prioritise equity to ensure technological progress addresses fundamental barriers, delivering justice that is accessible, not merely theoretical.
Footnotes
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 36. 2. Freedom of Information Act 2011 (Nigeria).
- African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
- Evidence Act 2011 (Nigeria), ss 84–89.
- National Judicial Council, Guidelines for Virtual Court Proceedings (2020). 6. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 17(2)(a). 7. Freedom of Information Act 2011 (Nigeria).
- Ariori v Elemo [1983] 1 SCNLR 1.
- Abraham Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) NCLR 358. 10. SERAP v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2012) ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12 (ECOWAS Court). 11. Ekperokun v University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt 34) 162 (SC).
- Global Transport Oceanico SA v Free Enterprises (Nig) Ltd (2001) FWLR (Pt 40) 1706. 13. SP Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 (India).
- British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) https://www.bailii.org accessed 24 September 2025.
- Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII) https://www.saflii.org accessed 24 September 2025.
- LawPavilion, ‘Law Reports and Case Management Systems’ https://lawpavilion.com accessed 24 September 2025.
Bibliography
Cases
Abraham Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) NCLR 358 Ariori v Elemo [1983] 1 SCNLR 1
Ekperokun v University of Lagos (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt 34) 162 (SC)
Global Transport Oceanico SA v Free Enterprises (Nig) Ltd (2001) FWLR (Pt 40) 1706 SERAP v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2012) ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12 (ECOWAS Court) SP Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 (India)
Legislation
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Evidence Act 2011 (Nigeria)
Freedom of Information Act 2011 (Nigeria)
International Instruments
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) OAU Doc CAB/LEG/67/3 rev 5, 21 ILM 58 (1982)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III))
