“Ogun Lawyers Boycott Courts Over Fees” — Protest ₦100,000 Online Hearing Charge, ₦1,700 Affidavit Fee, ₦50,000 Annual Filing Subscription

Lawyers in Ogun State recently staged a three-day boycott of courts, protesting new judiciary policies that introduced exorbitant fees for virtual hearings, increased affidavit charges, and imposed restrictions on daily affidavit filings. The contentious policies include a ₦100,000 virtual hearing fee per session, an increase in oath administration fees from ₦200 to over ₦1,500, and a ₦50,000 annual filing subscription, alongside a limit of four witness oaths per lawyer daily. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) branches in Abeokuta, Sagamu, and Ota led the industrial action, arguing that these charges undermine access to justice and impose undue financial burdens on litigants and legal practitioners. The Ogun State Judiciary, while acknowledging the fees, cited the need to fund digital infrastructure and electronic processing systems as justification, drawing comparisons to similar reforms in other states.

The administration of justice in Ogun State, Nigeria, recently faced significant disruption as lawyers embarked on a three-day boycott of court proceedings. This industrial action, spearheaded by various branches of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), was a direct response to newly introduced judiciary policies perceived as detrimental to both legal practitioners and the public seeking justice. At the heart of the protest were controversial charges, including a steep ₦100,000 fee for virtual court hearings, a substantial increase in affidavit administration costs, and the imposition of an annual filing subscription, coupled with restrictions on the number of affidavits lawyers could process daily.

This development highlights a growing tension between the judiciary's need for financial sustainability, particularly in an era of digital transformation, and the fundamental right to access justice. The lawyers' boycott underscores critical questions about the legal basis for such fee increments, their impact on the affordability of litigation, and the broader implications for the rule of law in Nigeria. This article delves into the statutory and doctrinal context of court fees in Nigeria, analyzes the specific policies protested in Ogun State, and explores the potential ramifications for legal practice and the pursuit of justice.

The power to regulate court fees and procedures in Nigerian courts is primarily vested in the Chief Judges of the respective jurisdictions, pursuant to constitutional provisions and enabling statutes. Section 274 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), empowers the Chief Judge of a State to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the High Court over which they preside. Similar provisions exist for other levels of courts, allowing for the issuance of Practice Directions and Civil Procedure Rules that often include schedules of fees. These fees are typically intended to cover administrative costs, discourage frivolous litigation, and contribute to the maintenance and development of judicial infrastructure.

Historically, court fees in Nigeria have been subject to periodic review, reflecting economic realities and the evolving needs of the justice system. However, the principle of judicial financial autonomy, enshrined in Sections 81(3), 121(3), and 162(9) of the 1999 Constitution, mandates that funds standing to the credit of the judiciary be paid directly to the heads of courts. Despite these constitutional guarantees, the actualisation of full financial independence for the judiciary has been an enduring challenge, often leading to reliance on internally generated revenue, including court fees. The Nigerian Bar Association, as the umbrella body for legal practitioners, frequently engages with the judiciary on matters affecting legal practice and access to justice, often advocating against policies perceived as burdensome.

The core of the Ogun State lawyers' protest revolved around three key policies: the ₦100,000 virtual hearing fee, the increased affidavit charges, and the ₦50,000 annual filing subscription, coupled with restrictions on daily affidavit processing. The virtual hearing fee, particularly, has drawn sharp criticism for its sheer magnitude. While the Ogun State Judiciary's Chief Registrar, Olakulehin Oke, justified the fee by citing the substantial cost of maintaining digital infrastructure for virtual courtrooms, the amount is significantly higher than what is charged in other progressive jurisdictions. For instance, Lagos State, a pioneer in virtual court proceedings, implemented a ₦30,000 fee per session. The disparity raises questions about the transparency and reasonableness of the Ogun State fee, especially given that it applies per session, potentially escalating litigation costs exponentially for complex cases requiring multiple virtual appearances.

The increase in oath administration fees from ₦200 to over ₦1,500 also presents a considerable burden. While the judiciary attributed this to a migration to electronic and digital processing systems, the previous cost of affidavits in various Nigerian courts typically ranged from ₦500 to ₦2,000, with Notary Public services being significantly higher. The sharp increase, coupled with the restriction limiting lawyers to processing only four witness oaths daily, directly impacts the efficiency of legal practice and the speed of litigation. Such restrictions can cause undue delays, particularly in cases with numerous witnesses, thereby frustrating the expeditious dispensation of justice.

These policies, particularly the high virtual hearing fees and increased affidavit costs, have profound implications for access to justice. The right to a fair hearing and access to court is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed under Sections 6(6)(b) and 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Exorbitant court fees can effectively price out indigent litigants and even those with moderate means, creating a barrier to seeking legal redress. This runs contrary to the constitutional imperative of ensuring justice for all citizens. While courts need funding, the method of generating revenue must not undermine the very essence of their existence – to provide accessible justice. The NBA's argument that these policies are “inimical to the interests of our members and the administration of justice” resonates with the broader principle that justice should not be a commodity available only to the wealthy.

Furthermore, the introduction of a ₦50,000 annual filing subscription, if broadly applied, could add another layer of financial strain on legal practitioners and their clients. Such administrative fees, when combined with other charges, contribute to the overall cost of litigation, potentially discouraging individuals and businesses from pursuing legitimate claims. The justification for such a subscription, beyond general revenue generation, remains unclear and warrants further scrutiny regarding its proportionality and necessity in promoting an efficient justice system. The cumulative effect of these charges risks creating a perception that the judiciary is prioritizing revenue generation over its primary mandate of dispensing justice fairly and accessibly.

The three-day boycott by Ogun State lawyers serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between judicial funding and the imperative of access to justice. While the judiciary's need for resources, particularly for modernizing its infrastructure, is understandable, the imposition of prohibitive fees risks alienating the very public it serves. The significant disparity in virtual hearing fees compared to other states like Lagos, coupled with the sharp increase in affidavit costs and filing restrictions, necessitates a re-evaluation of these policies by the Ogun State Judiciary.

For legal practitioners, the implications are clear: increased operational costs, potential client attrition due to unaffordable litigation, and administrative bottlenecks. It is crucial for the NBA to continue its advocacy, engaging in constructive dialogue with the judiciary to establish a more equitable and sustainable fee structure. Moving forward, stakeholders should watch for potential legal challenges to these fees, further policy adjustments by the Ogun State Judiciary, and a broader national conversation on harmonizing court fees across states to ensure that technological advancements in justice administration genuinely enhance, rather than impede, access to justice for all Nigerians.