Despite concerted efforts by anti-graft agencies, as well as bold legal reforms, AMEH OCHOJILA reports that the wheels of anti-corruption trials have remained painfully slow, thereby undermining
accountability, public trust, and judicial effectiveness.

Although Nigeria has codified a robust anti-corruption legal framework, bolstered by instruments such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the practical implementation of these laws has continued to suffer under the weight of procedural inertia, poor infrastructure, and systemic inefficiencies.

Despite repeated pronouncements by state actors pledging to tackle corruption head-on, the slow and inconsistent dispensation of justice has become a major impediment, not only weakening deterrence but also gradually eroding public trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.

Efforts to expedite the prosecution of corruption cases have been repeatedly hindered by the inconsistent application of statutory provisions across states. The ACJA, which mandates speedy trials, special courts, and designated judges, is often observed more in the breach than in practice.

Civil society organisations and international monitors, such as Human Rights Watch, have highlighted numerous corruption prosecutions that have remained stagnant for three to four years, many without a single witness being called or any substantive hearing being held. What emerges from these patterns is a judiciary frequently ensnared by interlocutory appeals, procedural ambushes, and the continued reliance on manual case tracking systems that stall proceedings and encourage a culture of delay.

Nowhere is this crisis more apparent than in the growing backlog of corruption trials that have failed to progress despite the gravity of the allegations and the public resources at stake.

Only recently, the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ola Olukoyede, decried what he described as the “judicial gamesmanship” frustrating the commission’s work, citing incessant adjournments, conflicting court orders, and a pervasive over-dependence on technicalities which, he argued, have been strategically exploited by high-profile defendants to frustrate trials.

President Bola Tinubu has also expressed concern over frivolous appeals, the abuse of injunctions, and the deliberate intimidation of judicial officers as mechanisms by which justice is not only delayed but also undermined. He spoke through the Vice President, Kashim Shettima.

The pattern is particularly stark in corruption cases involving top government officials and former state governors. The trials of such governors and politicians are either stalled or mired in procedural confusion. In many of these cases, progress has been hindered by frequent adjournments, judge reassignments, jurisdictional objections, and courtroom theatrics that divert attention from the substantive issues at the heart of each matter.

In some cases, the defendants “faint” in open court, develop sudden illnesses, appear in court in wheelchairs or stretchers, or abscond abroad under the guise of medical treatment to obstruct the progress of the cases. All of these are facilitated by senior lawyers, who often violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by stalling trials and avoiding sanctions from the relevant bodies.

Over time, public attention fades, and with it, civic pressure for accountability also wanes. The signal sent to the political class is clear: delay can be a strategy, and accountability is negotiable.

The long list of examples includes the trial of the former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, who is accused of embezzling billions of dollars and engaging in money laundering activities during her tenure as Minister of Petroleum Resources under President Goodluck Jonathan. The case has remained unresolved since 2015, when she left office.

Also, Abdulaziz Yari, who is accused of misappropriating over N151 billion during his tenure as governor of Zamfara State from 2011 to 2019, has not made significant progress. It remains prolonged in the courts.

Included in this list is the former Governor of Anambra State, Willie Obiano, whose arraignment and trial have made little to no progress since January last year. Also worthy of mention is the alleged N60.85 billion fraud charge against the former governor of Abia State, Theodore Orji, his son, Chinedum, and two others. It took about 10 years after leaving office to file the charge, and only God knows how long it will take to be concluded.

Beyond legal tactics, the broader institutional context remains a significant obstacle to the timely adjudication of cases. Although stakeholders across the judiciary have long lamented the chronic underinvestment in court infrastructure, the shortage of qualified personnel, and the inefficiencies that come with a system that is still heavily reliant on paper-based processes, this is not helping matters.

Many courtrooms lack basic digital tools, and judges are routinely transferred mid-trial without mechanisms in place to preserve continuity. In some courts, proceedings are disrupted by power failures and record loss, all of which cumulatively extend already lengthy trials into indefinite sagas.

This structural dysfunction is compounded by growing public cynicism regarding the integrity of the judiciary.

A 2022 Chatham House survey found that while 88 per cent of Nigerians reject judicial bribery as morally wrong, 61 per cent believe judges in Nigeria are likely to accept bribes to influence decisions, highlighting a disparity between ethical disapproval and perceived reality.

This disconnect fosters what social psychologists call “pluralistic ignorance,” where individuals, assuming they are alone in their disapproval, refrain from pushing for reform. The result is a judiciary operating under a cloud of suspicion, its legitimacy weakened by both perception and precedent.

The American Department of State and former President Olusegun Obasanjo have separately issued damning indictments of the judiciary, lamenting how corruption, inefficiency, and political interference have impeded justice delivery in Africa’s largest democracy.

In its 2024 Human Rights Practices Report released on August 12, America catalogued troubling evidence of Nigeria’s declining rule of law, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, corruption in high-profile prosecutions, and weak enforcement of labour and child protection laws.

Days after, Obasanjo, while launching his new book, Nigeria: Past and Future, accused judges of turning Nigerian courts into “courts of corruption rather than courts of justice,” lamenting what he described as the “precipitous fall” of judicial integrity in the Fourth Republic.

Both declarations believe that Nigeria’s justice system is deeply compromised, with implications that extend far beyond the courtroom into politics, human rights, and national stability.

According to Obasanjo, corruption within the Bench has not only discredited the courts but also imperilled Nigeria’s democracy. “The reputation of the judiciary has steadily gone down from the four eras up till today. The rapidity of the precipitous fall, particularly in the Fourth Republic, is lamentable,” he wrote in his new book.

For Obasanjo, the commercialisation of justice is not just a moral failure, but a direct threat to peace and stability.

The consequences of these delays are far-reaching. When corruption trials stretch endlessly without resolution, the prospect of punishment loses its sting. Furthermore, a legal system that permits delay tactics effectively rewards those with the resources to outmanoeuvre it, and in doing so, sends a clear message: the law is pliable for the powerful. This undermines deterrence, drains public resources, and exposes the judiciary to ridicule.

Beyond diminishing deterrent value, prolonged trials consume valuable time and human capital that could otherwise be invested in grassroots access to justice, preventive initiatives, and institutional strengthening.

Judges and prosecutors who are already stretched find themselves burnt out and demoralised, further reducing the system’s efficiency. As public confidence dwindles, so too does the media’s interest and civic engagements, leaving reform efforts starved of the pressure and visibility that they require to take root.

Nonetheless, experts and advocates continue to propose workable solutions. Chief among these is the rigorous enforcement of the ACJA provisions, which limit adjournments and mandate day-to-day proceedings. Court digitisation remains an urgent priority, with calls for the widespread adoption of e-filing systems, virtual hearings, and centralised digital records to streamline operations.

Pre-trial conferences have also been recommended as a mechanism for managing cases more efficiently, limiting the scope for delay while compelling parties to focus on substantive issues.

Equally critical is the expansion of judicial capacity. With a growing caseload and limited bench strength, there is an urgent need to recruit and train more judges, magistrates, and prosecutorial staff, particularly those with specialised training in financial and corruption cases. Civil society engagement must also be deepened, with trial monitoring initiatives, transparency scorecards, and citizen feedback platforms helping to re-anchor public accountability in the process.

At the institutional level, there is a pressing need to sanction actors, whether judges, lawyers, or prosecutors, who weaponise procedural rules to obstruct justice.

Ensuring the independence of the judiciary is also fundamental. Judges must be shielded from political interference and protected from extrajudicial pressures that compromise their impartiality.

Perhaps most crucially, the reforms must begin at the investigative stage. Cases must be built on credible, well-documented evidence that can withstand legal scrutiny. This will require strengthening the capacity of investigative agencies, modernising forensic procedures, and ensuring that prosecutions are not launched on speculative grounds, but grounded in solid facts.

The delays in corruption trials, therefore, are not merely a procedural concern – they strike at the heart of Nigeria’s democracy and governance. If left unchecked, they will continue to embolden the corrupt, demoralise reformers, and drain whatever remains of the public’s trust in the justice system.

Ultimately, justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done – and it must be done in good time. In a country where delay has become a tactic and accountability a negotiation, reclaiming the credibility of the courts is not just a legal necessity but a democratic imperative.

A lawyer, Omale Ajonye, said despite clear provisions in the EFCC Act and the ACJA aimed at ensuring speedy trials, corruption cases have continued to suffer prolonged delays.

“In my view, this gap between law and practice stems not from a deficiency in legislation, but from systemic and institutional weaknesses.”

He attributed it to court congestion, an entrenched culture of frivolous adjournments, and the misuse of interlocutory appeals, which have become common tactics used by “smart” lawyers to frustrate trials.

He said investigative agencies often present poorly prepared cases due to limited resources and capacity, while some legal practitioners exploit procedural loopholes to stall justice. “Judicial corruption and political interference – though difficult to quantify- further erode the integrity and pace of the process,” he noted.

The lawyer said the most concerning is the lack of consequences for those who deliberately delay proceedings, and the judiciary’s inconsistent enforcement of the ACJA’s strict timelines.

“Unless we build stronger institutions, hold parties accountable for delay tactics, and fully implement existing laws without fear or favour, the fight against corruption will remain more performative than effective.

“I must add that it is only when the ACJA is adopted across small states and given the constitutional might it requires in terms of a strict timeline like the Electoral Act, the efficiency in handling criminal cases would not meet expectations,” he said.

Another lawyer, Bayo Akinlade, stated that the courts are often overwhelmed with cases.
According to him, even if specialised courts are established to deal with criminal acts from EFCC, the court is overburdened, adding that corruption and other vices would not make it efficient.

“Courts are understaffed, and there is low capacity with court congestion and low pay. It’s difficult to have speedy trials considering all these factors,” he declared.