By Ogu Thomas Obohi, Esq.
Many Nigerians have not merely criticized the judiciary, they have quietly withdrawn their faith from it. This is not an attack on the conscientious judex, the diligent Chief Judges, or the tireless court registrars who labour under crushing dockets and limited resources. It is, rather, a call to sanitize the modus operandi of a system whose greatest strength should be transparency.
Justice, after all, is not a nocturnal creature. It thrives in the light.
The authority of the judiciary has never depended solely on the power to make binding decisions; it depends equally on the confidence of the people that those decisions emerge from a process that is fair, visible, and accountable. Courts do not merely resolve disputes between individuals; they represent the institutional promise that rights will be protected and wrongs will be addressed according to law. Where the process of justice becomes difficult for ordinary citizens to understand, even where the outcome is legally correct, a dangerous distance begins to grow between the judiciary and the society it serves.
Transparency, therefore, should not be perceived as an intrusion into judicial independence or an unnecessary administrative burden. It is one of the pillars upon which judicial legitimacy rests. A system that records, preserves, and communicates its proceedings clearly does not weaken the authority of the court; it reinforces it. Real-time transparency is not a demand for public spectacle, nor an invitation to interfere with adjudication, but a necessary evolution towards a justice system where litigants, lawyers, and the public can confidently say not only that justice was done, but that they understand how it was done.
The Problem: Proceedings in the Shadows
A litigant accompanies his lawyer to court. He sits at the back, anxious and hopeful. The matter is called. Submissions are made. The court adjourns.
Outside the courtroom, he turns to his counsel:
“What happened?” And the explanation begins; adjournment, mention, hearing, definite hearing, ruling, motion, stay, processes yet to be regularized. To the litigant, these are hieroglyphics. Worse still, in the absence of an official public record of what precisely transpired, mischief can breed. A court may adjourn for ruling on a motion. At the next date, a counsel may attempt to elevate it into a “definite hearing,” creating confusion or subtly pressuring the bench. What was a procedural pause becomes a procedural ambush.
We must admit a simple truth: Where procedure is undocumented in real time, procedure becomes negotiable. And procedure is never meant to be negotiable.
The administration of justice does not operate merely through the pronouncements of judges; it operates through a transparent and verifiable process by which parties understand what decisions have been taken, why they were taken, and what procedural consequences flow from them. The courtroom is not a private theatre between counsel and the bench. It is a public institution where the rights, obligations, and expectations of citizens are determined. Where the ordinary litigant must depend entirely on oral recollections of counsel to know what happened in a proceeding that affects his life, property, liberty, or reputation, a gap is created between justice as administered and justice as experienced.
This gap is not merely a matter of inconvenience; it has serious implications for fairness and accountability. Litigation is built upon sequence, certainty, and record. Every adjournment, every order made, every undertaking given, and every procedural direction issued by the court has consequences. When these events are not accurately captured and easily accessible, parties may act upon different versions of what occurred, thereby creating unnecessary disputes, allegations of manipulation, and avoidable applications before the court. A system of justice that depends heavily on memory rather than verifiable records creates fertile ground for procedural uncertainty.
Modern justice systems across the world increasingly recognize that transparency is an essential component of judicial legitimacy. The record of proceedings should not be viewed as a mere administrative document prepared for the convenience of lawyers and judges; it is a safeguard for the litigant and a mechanism for preserving public confidence in the judiciary. The time has therefore come to rethink courtroom documentation in Nigeria by embracing mechanisms that ensure that what happens in court is recorded contemporaneously, accurately, and in a manner that allows parties to understand and verify the progress of their own cases.
Hearing vs. Definite Hearing: Words Matter in Law
In law, words are not ornaments. They are instruments. There is a legal distinction between hearing and definite hearing. Between mention and trial. Between ruling and judgment. Between adjournment for continuation and adjournment for adoption. Yet, in the absence of a publicly accessible case-progress record, narratives can be weaponized. The court itself may find its prior pronouncements disputed. And when a court’s own record differs from a lawyer’s note, the almost sacred refrain echoes: “That is not my record.” In that moment, institutional memory becomes fragile. The danger lies not only in misunderstanding terminology but in allowing procedural language to lose its precision. Legal words carry consequences because they determine the rights and obligations of parties at every stage of litigation. A matter adjourned for mention is fundamentally different from one adjourned for definite hearing; a proceeding fixed for ruling is different from one set down for judgment. These distinctions are not semantic technicalities; they determine preparation, expectation, and the procedural steps available to parties. When these distinctions are blurred or reconstructed after the fact, the certainty upon which judicial proceedings depend begins to erode.
A reliable justice system must therefore preserve not only the final outcome of litigation but also the procedural journey that leads to that outcome. The authority of the court is strengthened when every procedural step can be traced, verified, and understood by those affected by it. A transparent record of proceedings does not diminish judicial discretion; rather, it protects the court, counsel, and litigants by ensuring that the language of the courtroom remains accurate, consistent, and incapable of being distorted by competing recollections.
The Proposal: Electronic Case Progress & Public Case Tracking
The solution is neither radical nor impossible. If we can demand real-time electronic transmission of election results, why should the judiciary, the guardian of constitutional order operate behind a procedural veil? I propose a real-time electronic case tracking system, accessible to litigants and, where appropriate, the public.
Each case, tied to its suit number, should show:
Date filed
Date served
Dates court sat
What the court adjourned for
Number of adjournments
Pending motions
Status of appeals
Date judgment delivered
An Excel-style, structured electronic register. Simple. Precise. Transparent.
If a court did not sit, let it be recorded: “Court did not sit.”
If a matter was adjourned for ruling, let it be clearly stated.
If proceedings were stalled due to a pending stay at the Court of Appeal, let it be reflected.
Transparency prevents confusion.
Documentation prevents manipulation.
The Benefits: Accountability Without Accusation
Such a system would:
Empower litigants to track their cases from anywhere in the world.
Prevent counsel from misleading clients about court attendance.
Provide Chief Judges with data-driven oversight of judicial productivity.
Help identify systemic bottlenecks.
Restore public trust in the administration of justice.
If police stations can display, in conspicuous places, the number of inmates and their custody status, what prevents the judiciary from displaying the procedural life of its own cases?
The court would be the first beneficiary of this reform.
A transparent judiciary does not lose dignity — it gains authority.
The Cost Question: CTC Fees and the Burden on Justice
There is another uncomfortable issue: the cost of Certified True Copies (CTCs).
It defies reason that one may file a suit for ₦2,500 or ₦26,000, yet be charged ₦40,000 or more to obtain a CTC of a judgment required to pursue an appeal.
What principle justifies a processing fee that dwarfs the cost of filing the case itself?
Is the CTC a gateway to heaven?
Access to appellate justice should not be a financial ambush. When procedural documentation becomes exorbitant, justice becomes tiered; affordable to some, prohibitive to others.
If digitized judgments are uploaded online:
Viewing may be free.
Official downloadable certified copies may attract reasonable statutory fees.
Payment structures can be standardized and transparent.
The present opacity fuels suspicion. And suspicion is corrosive to judicial legitimacy.
The issue of Certified True Copies is therefore not merely an administrative question; it is a justice question. A judgment is not simply a document generated at the conclusion of litigation; it is the formal expression of the court’s authority and the instrument through which parties exercise their legal rights. Where access to that instrument is delayed, restricted, or made disproportionately expensive, the practical value of the judgment itself is diminished. A successful litigant who cannot reasonably obtain the record required for enforcement or appeal remains trapped between victory and the realization of justice. A modern judicial system must recognize that documentation is part of the right of access to justice, not a commercial privilege attached to litigation. Technology provides an opportunity to redesign the system in a manner that preserves revenue where legitimately required while eliminating unnecessary barriers. Transparency in CTC processes, clear timelines, standardized charges, and digital availability of judgments would not only reduce hardship on litigants but would also enhance public confidence by demonstrating that access to judicial records is governed by principle rather than uncertainty.
The Ten-Year Case: A Silent Tragedy
Why does a case linger for ten years?
The public does not know.
Sometimes it is due to interlocutory appeals.
Sometimes due to repeated adjournments.
Sometimes due to congested dockets.
Sometimes due to counsel-induced delays.
Sometimes due to institutional inefficiencies.
But because the procedural journey is not visible, the entire blame falls on “the judiciary.”
A public case trail would tell the story.
Justice delayed is injurious.
Justice unexplained is fatal to trust.
“As the Court Pleases”; The Comfortable Veil
We have been conditioned to utter:
“As the court pleases.”
It is a phrase of deference.
But deference should not replace documentation.
Behind that phrase, many procedural ambiguities have been quietly buried. The law thrives not merely on courtesy but on clarity. Respect for the court is a foundational principle of legal practice, but respect cannot mean silence in the face of uncertainty. The phrase “As the court pleases” reflects the dignity and authority of judicial office, yet the administration of justice requires more than solemn expressions of obedience; it requires a process that is transparent, recorded, and capable of verification. The legitimacy of judicial decisions does not arise solely from the authority of the person who makes them, but also from the confidence that the process leading to those decisions was clear, consistent, and properly documented.
The challenge, therefore, is not to diminish the authority of the court but to strengthen it. Proper documentation does not question judicial discretion; it preserves judicial integrity. A clear and accessible record protects the bench from inaccurate recollections, protects counsel from unfair allegations, and protects litigants from being left in procedural darkness. In a modern justice system, accountability and respect must operate together, because the strongest institution is not one that avoids scrutiny, but one whose processes can withstand it.
Transparency as a Democratic Imperative
Trust. Transparency. Judicial accountability. These are not optional virtues. They are non-negotiable pillars of constitutional democracy. A judiciary shrouded in operational secrecy; however sincere its officers; will always face suspicion. A judiciary that opens its processes to structured public scrutiny will command respect. Sunlight does not weaken the bench. It fortifies it.
The Way Forward
Develop a centralized electronic case management and tracking portal.
Mandate real-time upload of adjournment purposes and court attendance.
Publish digitized judgments upon delivery.
Standardize and regulate CTC fees.
Expand judicial budgets to recruit technical staff for digital administration.
Reform need not be revolutionary. It only needs to be intentional.
Conclusion: Justice Must Be Seen, Not Assumed
A society that cannot see how justice moves will assume it does not move at all.
Transparency is not an insult to judicial authority, it is its shield.
Let justice step into the sunlight.
Let procedure be documented.
Let adjournments speak for themselves.
Let litigants track their destiny.
And let no Nigerian ever again wonder, after leaving court:
“What exactly happened today?”
Because when justice is visible, faith is restored.
And when faith is restored, democracy survives.
About the Author
Ogu Thomas Obohi, LL.B, B.L, LL.M (Ph.D. in View), is a legal practitioner with a keen interest in judicial reform, constitutional law, and the administration of justice in Nigeria. He currently serves as the State Legal Adviser of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Nasarawa State, where he provides legal and policy guidance on party affairs. His writings advocate for practical, technology-driven reforms aimed at strengthening the rule of law, enhancing institutional accountability, and promoting public confidence in Nigeria’s justice system.
In this article