THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE DELIVERY: WHY NIGERIAN JUDGES MUST EMBRACE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

In April 2025, we had the opportunity to conduct a training programme on Artificial Intelligence for 19 judges of the Kaduna State High Court. Our objective was simple: to demonstrate how AI could assist judges in performing their judicial functions more efficiently.

What happened afterwards was particularly encouraging. Three or four judges took a keen interest in the technology and immediately began incorporating it into their daily work. The feedback was remarkable. Tasks that previously consumed considerable time, particularly legal research, organising materials and preparing rulings and judgments, became significantly easier.

That experience reinforced my belief that sometimes, the difference between a judge struggling with an enormous workload and one delivering more efficiently is not necessarily a question of ability or commitment. It may simply be access to the right tools.

Consider a typical working day in a busy High Court. A judge arrives with a cause list containing perhaps 20 or 30 matters. The judge must listen to arguments, record proceedings, examine evidence, consider applications and make decisions. At the end of the day, there are still rulings and judgments to prepare, authorities to research and files to review. Much of this work continues long after normal court hours.

We expect our judges to perform these demanding responsibilities with exceptional accuracy and concentration. But are we giving them the tools to do so efficiently?

The problem of judicial congestion

An enormous volume of pending cases burdens Nigeria's judicial system. The Federal High Court provides a striking illustration. At the opening of the 2025/2026 legal year, its Chief Judge disclosed that 165,905 cases remained pending nationwide following the 2024/2025 legal year.

We often discuss judicial congestion in terms of the number of judges, courtrooms and available resources. These are important, but we pay insufficient attention to the administrative burden placed on individual judges.

We cannot continue to rely almost entirely on manual processes and expect substantially different results. This is where technology becomes important.

What technology can do for our courts

Technology, in its simplest sense, should make things easier, faster and more efficient. It should solve problems and enable people to achieve better results with the resources available to them.

Artificial Intelligence is only one aspect of this broader technological transformation.

First, digital recording and automatic transcription.

One of the most immediate interventions is replacing manual recording of proceedings with digital audio recording and transcription systems. Imagine a courtroom where proceedings are automatically recorded and converted into written transcripts. A judge can concentrate on the arguments and evidence rather than struggle to capture every important submission in longhand.

Singapore has implemented Digital Audio Recording and Transcription (DART) systems in its State Courts. India has also adopted technology-enabled transcription solutions for court proceedings.

These are practical solutions that Nigerian courts can adopt.

Secondly, AI-assisted legal research and judgment preparation.

AI can assist judges in researching legal authorities, summarising lengthy submissions, organising arguments, identifying inconsistencies in documents and preparing initial drafts of rulings and judgments.

Consider a commercial dispute involving thousands of pages of documents. AI can help organise the documents, prepare chronologies, identify relevant contractual provisions and locate specific pieces of evidence.

The judge must, of course, independently verify the information, evaluate the evidence and determine the applicable law. AI should assist judicial thinking, not replace it.

Thirdly, electronic filing and case management.

An integrated electronic case management system would allow lawyers to file processes, make payments, receive notifications and access court records electronically.

Judges and registrars should also have access to dashboards showing pending applications, previous proceedings, hearing dates and outstanding processes.

AI could further assist by identifying inactive cases, flagging procedural delays and helping court administrators manage cause lists more effectively.

Fourthly, voice recognition and virtual hearings.

Judges could dictate rulings and judgments directly into computers using voice-to-text technology, reducing the time spent typing or handwriting documents.

Similarly, appropriate procedural proceedings and case management conferences could be conducted virtually, reducing unnecessary travel and delays.

These interventions are not about introducing technology for its own sake. They are about freeing judges from avoidable administrative burdens so they can concentrate on deciding cases.

Lessons from other jurisdictions

Other jurisdictions are already demonstrating what is possible.

In Singapore, digital recording and transcription have become part of courtroom administration. In India, the Supreme Court has introduced SUVAS, an AI-assisted translation tool designed to make judicial decisions accessible in different Indian languages.

The United Kingdom has also introduced AI-powered Judicial Transcribe across its Immigration and Asylum Chamber to assist with converting oral proceedings into structured case notes.

These examples demonstrate that AI and technology are no longer theoretical possibilities in justice delivery. They are already changing how courts operate.

Nigeria should learn from these experiences and develop solutions suited to our own judicial environment.

The human factor: Technology will not implement itself

There is, however, an important lesson from our own experience in Kaduna.

I recall the installation of technological equipment in a court within the Kaduna State High Court complex intended to improve the recording and management of proceedings. The equipment was installed, but within a relatively short period, it was no longer being used. We were told that it had developed technical problems.

I have often wondered whether the problem was entirely with the equipment or whether insufficient attention had been paid to training the people expected to operate it.

Many court personnel have worked with manual processes for decades. They understand the old system and have developed routines around it. Suddenly, they are introduced to unfamiliar machines and software, given perhaps two or three days of training and expected to make a complete transition.

There is also the natural apprehension of damaging expensive equipment or making mistakes while operating unfamiliar systems.

When something goes wrong, the easiest option is often to return to the familiar manual process.

This is why technology adoption requires more than procurement and installation. It requires continuous training, practical demonstrations, technical support and institutional commitment.

Judges, registrars and other court personnel must be involved in the process from the beginning. Training should not be a one-off exercise. There must be adequate support to ensure that the technology becomes part of everyday judicial administration.

A technologically advanced courtroom that nobody knows how to operate is simply an expensive investment going to waste.

The safeguards must also be right

Embracing AI does not mean surrendering judicial independence to machines. AI can produce inaccurate information, invent judicial authorities and misinterpret evidence.

There must therefore be clear guidelines governing its use, particularly regarding confidentiality, data protection and verification of legal authorities.

The principle should be straightforward: AI may assist the judge, but it must never replace the judge. The responsibility for interpreting the law, evaluating evidence and determining disputes must remain with the judicial officer.

The opportunity before Nigeria

Judicial reform must go beyond appointing more judges and building additional courtrooms. Those interventions remain necessary, but we must also improve the productivity of our existing judicial institutions.

The National Judicial Council, the National Judicial Institute, Heads of Court, the Nigerian Bar Association and technology professionals should work together to develop a coordinated strategy for digital transformation of our courts.

We can begin with pilot projects in selected judicial divisions, introducing digital recording, automated transcription, electronic case management and AI-assisted research, while providing continuous training for judicial officers and support personnel.

Technology cannot solve every problem in our justice system. It cannot eliminate dishonest litigation or prevent every unnecessary adjournment. But it can remove many of the avoidable obstacles that make justice unnecessarily slow and expensive.

We cannot continue to operate a twenty-first-century justice system with processes designed for another era.

The future of justice delivery is not about replacing judges with artificial intelligence. It is about empowering judges with the tools to do what they already do, only better, faster and more efficiently.

Perhaps the most important question is no longer whether our judiciary can afford to embrace technology. It is whether it can afford not to.

Idris Mohammed, FCIArb (UK), is a Nigerian legal practitioner, arbitrator and Managing Partner of Fama Firm. He holds a Postgraduate Diploma in Computer and Communications Law from the University of London and has over two decades of legal practice experience. He has facilitated AI training programmes for judges, lawyers and judicial support personnel, including judges of the Kaduna State High Court.