The Nigerian judiciary is currently groaning under an ever-increasing backlog of cases, resulting in prolonged delays, judicial inefficiency, and a steady erosion of public confidence.

From the backlog of 155,969 cases pending at the Federal High Court in the last legal year to 6,992 cases pending at the National Industrial Court, the volume of unresolved matters in Nigeria’s judiciary remains significant. In the Court of Appeal, records show that 39,526 cases were pending as of the 2023/2024 legal year.

These developments saddened the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kekere-Ekun. Her words: “We must be deeply concerned by the increase in pending cases and low disposition rates. As of the 1st quarter of 2024, we had 243,253 cases pending in our superior courts of record, exclusive of the Supreme Court.”

This troubling statistic is undeniable. According to her, justices and judges cannot ignore the growing backlog of cases or expect different outcomes while relying on the same methods and practices. This heavy docket directly impacts the number of inmates awaiting trial, and the number of human resources wasted in state facilities.

According to statistics from the Nigeria Correctional Service as of January 6, 2025, no less than 52,903 individuals remain in custody, languishing in their facilities. This figure is likely to have increased by now.

Worried by this growing increase of awaiting trial, the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACoN), under the leadership of Aliyu Bagudu Abubakar, recently took steps to address the plight of inmates at the Old Keffi Custodial Centre.

The council reviewed the cases of 23 awaiting trial inmates who lack legal representation and provided updates to existing clients on the status of their cases.

Although ADR mechanisms are legally recognised as vital tools for addressing these challenges, their limited adoption has compounded the strain on regular courts and limited access to justice by the poor who could not hire legal representatives.

ADR, which encompasses arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and negotiation, is embedded in Section 19(d) of the 1999 Constitution as a legitimate means of dispute resolution.

Over the years, various institutions have sought to institute ADR as an alternative to litigation. For instance, the Federal High Court established an ADR Centre to encourage parties to resolve disputes amicably.

Similarly, the Court of Appeal’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre (CAADRC) began operation in 2021, facilitating the settlement of civil appeals, including matrimonial causes, land disputes, inheritance cases, and tort claims.

Since its inception, CAADRC has handled 300 cases, out of which 68 cases have been resolved. A total of 78 cases were returned to the court or registry due to non-compliance or non-resolution by the parties. Currently, 151 cases are ongoing. Similarly, the federal high court whose centre came into existence not too long ago had just managed to handle a few cases through mediation. The ADR centre had about six arbitrations and a mediation panel. The centre also had about two arbitrations that went back to court, while one mediation went back unresolved.

At the national human rights level, efforts have also been made to reduce terrorism and support rules of laws, through counter-terrorism and capacity building for Criminal Justice Sector Practitioners in East, West, and North. This is seen in the area of the introduction of Reconciliation, Reintegration and Transitional Justice in some parts of the North East. The consensus is that ADR will succeed if it gets adequate support from all the stakeholders, including community members.

The executive secretary of NHRC, Anthony Ojukwu (SAN) promised to collaborate with the offices of the Attorneys General in the three states to achieve this long-lasting legacy and build on emerging best practices on reconciliation and reintegration at state levels. The NHRC, therefore, piloted an initiative using reconciliation, retribution, and traditional justice to address disputes stemming from the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East.

While the programme showed some promise by engaging victims, perpetrators, and community leaders to resolve cases, the government’s lack of sustained support curtailed its progress. The initiative failed to achieve its full potential without adequate funding and policy backing.

That was why years after the pilot project was initiated in the North-East, not much is heard about the success of the programme. But the human rights adviser and coordinator of the programme, Hilary Ogbonna said it was like testing the water. According to him, using traditional methods to do justice is good.

However, the federal and state governments did not agree on how to proceed with the programme. A similar situation occurred in Anambra State, where the government constituted a 15-member Committee on Truth, Justice and Peace.

The governor, Prof. Chukwuma Soludo, said it was set up to enable the state government to interface and dialogue with various agitators and to allow peace to return to the region.

The committee chairman, Prof. Solo Chukwulobelu, said the committee’s purpose is to seek a restorative justice approach for truth-telling or real facts, for the healing of the victims of the violence.

All these initiatives and committees were designed to foster quicker and more peaceful resolutions, some through traditional justice, reconciliation and mediation and to reduce the overwhelming caseload in the judiciary.

Despite these constitutional and institutional frameworks, ADR mechanisms have yet to gain the traction required to ease the burden on the courts significantly. According to lawyers, one of such challenges is a lack of awareness among the populace, particularly in rural communities where formal court judgments are often perceived as the ultimate authority.

They noted other factors such as cultural biases against traditional justice systems, coupled with an over-reliance on modern litigation. All of those undermine the potential of ADR to act as a bridge between informal and formal justice processes. Institutional challenges have also played a significant role in the limited success of ADR and judicial reluctance has compounded these issues.

Despite formal endorsements of ADR, many judicial officers and legal practitioners remain hesitant to embrace these mechanisms, often citing fears of losing control over the outcome of cases or financial disincentives associated with shorter dispute resolution timelines. This resistance reflects a broader systemic reluctance to shift from entrenched litigation practices to more collaborative and restorative approaches.

The implications of this neglect are glaring. Courtrooms remain congested, with cases dragging on for years and litigants losing faith in the judicial process. The delays waste judicial resources and also prompt some individuals to resort to self-help measures, further destabilising the rule of law.

Integrating ADR mechanisms into the broader justice system is not just an option but an urgent necessity. Public education campaigns are needed to demystify ADR and promote its benefits, particularly in underserved communities.

The government must strengthen institutions like CAADRC and the Federal High Court’s ADR Centre by providing adequate funding and logistical support. A federally agreed-upon traditional justice framework, as proposed by the NHRC, could offer a uniform approach to incorporating community-led reconciliation and restitution into the justice system.

The experiences from the NHRC’s pilot programme in the North-East underline the transformative potential of traditional justice systems. Panels composed of traditional rulers, religious leaders, women, and youth representatives mediated disputes and issued non-custodial punishments such as community service or restitution.

While these efforts demonstrated the efficacy of ADR in fostering reconciliation and restitution, their sustainability depends on active governmental involvement. Interestingly, the Borno State government has expressed interest in legislating traditional justice practices, which could serve as a model for other states. The Social Investment Bill provides social services such as cash and consumables assistance to the victims of Boko Haram insurgency. This is a classic example of the domestication of traditional justice.

Monday Ikpe, an Abuja-based lawyer believes it is time to act. He stresses that by prioritising ADR mechanisms and integrating them with traditional justice systems, Nigeria can reduce court congestion, restore public trust in the judiciary, and ensure that justice is delivered swiftly and equitably. The judiciary, he said, must embrace this paradigm shift, for justice delayed is indeed justice denied.

A legal practitioner, Omale Ajonye highlighted the urgent need for greater support and awareness of ADR mechanisms in Nigeria, warning that the absence of such measures is straining the country’s legal system.

Ajonye said: “Without effective ADR mechanisms, more cases flood the courts, leading to delays and increased congestion. This significantly affects the efficiency of the judiciary.” He emphasised that the overburdened courts lead to increased costs, time consumption, and limited access to justice. “Litigation can be expensive, and the lack of ADR options means parties may incur higher costs,” he said, adding that court proceedings are often lengthy, further delaying dispute resolution.

Ajonye also pointed out that ADR could bridge the gap for marginalised groups and provide expertise that traditional court proceedings may lack. “The absence of ADR options can lead to an over-reliance on the adversarial system, which may not always provide the best outcomes. Mechanisms like arbitration bring specialised expertise that traditional courts may not offer,” he explained.

He expressed concern over the satisfaction levels of litigants, noting that many parties feel disillusioned with the court process. “Reduced satisfaction with the legal system erodes trust, which is critical for the judiciary to function effectively,” he said.

While acknowledging the establishment of ADR institutions such as the Nigerian Institute of Chartered Arbitrators and the Lagos Court of Arbitration, Ajonye argued that more work is required. “To address these challenges, we need to promote ADR awareness, training, and implementation. A lot of cases filed in our courts could be resolved through ADR, but most litigants are unaware of these mechanisms,” he stated.

He called for concerted efforts from stakeholders to enhance the integration of ADR into the country’s practices and acceptance emphasising that doing so would significantly alleviate the burden on the judiciary and improve access to justice.