•Nigerian lawyers
Judicial activities at courts in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital, Ota, and Sagamu have been paralysed as members of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) commenced a three-day courts’ boycott
Members say the boycott is in protest against certain policies of the Ogun State judiciary, which they believe are inimical to the interests of their members, reports Channels TV.
•The protesting lawyers, today
The judiciary complex, which houses the state high court, activities were affected by the boycott.
“We are here today because members of our branch, by resolution at our branch meeting, resolved to embark on a three-day court boycott, beginning today, 6th July 2026, through 8th July 2026.”
“The boycott is in protest against certain policies of the Ogun State Judiciary, which we believe are inimical to the interests of our members, first, the payment of a ₦100,000 virtual hearing fee. This means that any litigant who wishes to have a matter heard virtually must pay ₦100,000 for each virtual session,” the NBA chairman, Kayode Aderemi, said.
“Second, the increase in the oath administration fee from ₦200 to over ₦1,500. Our clients have complained about this increase, and it has also affected legal practitioners, who are constantly being questioned by their clients.
“Third, there is the issue of restrictions placed on lawyers. As it stands today, lawyers cannot process more than four witness oaths in a single day. The question then is: if I have 15 or more witnesses in a case, what happens?
“We believe this policy unjustifiably limits the ability of lawyers to carry out their professional duties. These and other related issues are the reasons we have declared this courts’ boycott.”
They say their grievances have been communicated to the leadership of the state judiciary.
“Yes, absolutely. We have done everything reasonably expected of us; for instance, we have written formally as a branch. Other NBA branches in Ogun State have also written on these issues.
“Beyond that, we have raised these concerns during the Bar and Bench Meetings, where branch chairmen, branch secretaries, administrative judges, and the Chief Judge are all present. We have discussed these matters repeatedly.
“In addition, respected senior members of the Bar have approached Their Lordships in an effort to resolve these issues. Unfortunately, all these efforts have proved unsuccessful. So yes, we have made several attempts to engage the management of the judiciary and His Lordship, the Chief Judge of Ogun State, to address these concerns. Regrettably, we have reached this point.
“To the best of my knowledge, the boycott is being observed by the NBA Abeokuta Branch, the NBA Ota Branch, and the NBA Sagamu Branch. It is not our responsibility to ensure that the courts comply. Our responsibility is to direct our members in line with the resolution reached by the branch, which is to boycott court proceedings during this period.
“From our observations, a few lawyers from outside the jurisdiction may not have been aware of the boycott. However, among lawyers within our jurisdiction, we have recorded almost 100% compliance. We monitored the courts one after another this morning, and we are satisfied with the level of compliance.”
In his reaction, the Chief Registrar of the Ogun State High Court, Oke-Olakunlehin Lukmon, said that the state judiciary was not duly informed about the courts’ boycott.
“Officially, we have not been informed. As I speak, there has been no official communication from any branch of the Nigerian Bar Association notifying us of any courts’ boycott, whatever the reason may be,” Lukmon said.
“We became aware of the boycott the same way many others did—through social media. We believe that, even where there are issues requiring discussion, there are established channels through which such matters can be addressed. With respect to the substance of the grievances raised, let me begin with the issue of virtual hearings.
“The lawyers stated in their press release that the cost of virtual hearings is prohibitive. However, before the High Court of Ogun State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2024, which introduced virtual hearings, came into force, draft copies were circulated to all five branches of the Nigerian Bar Association in Ogun State. They were invited to review the draft rules and make recommendations so that any grey areas or provisions requiring adjustment could be addressed.
“Unfortunately, four of the five branches did not respond. The only branch that did respond merely pointed out a few typographical errors. Following that consultative process, the High Court of Ogun State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2024 came into effect, introducing virtual hearings.
“It is important to note that virtual hearings are not mandatory. They are optional and intended for situations where, for one reason or another, witnesses cannot physically appear in court.
“Technology comes with costs. Establishing, maintaining, and operating virtual court facilities requires significant investment. Since the introduction of these provisions, virtual courtrooms have been installed in nine of the eleven judicial divisions in Ogun State, and more than 600 virtual hearings have been successfully conducted.
“Many litigants have already benefited from this innovation. We have had witnesses testify from countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United States.
“If those witnesses were required to travel physically to Nigeria, the cost would be substantial. Furthermore, if the court is unable to sit on a scheduled date due to unforeseen circumstances, such travel expenses would be wasted. The purpose of virtual hearings is therefore to improve access to justice, enhance efficiency, and reduce the overall cost of litigation.
“Again, I must emphasise that virtual hearings are entirely optional. Litigants who prefer the traditional method of attending court physically are free to do so.
“Before the introduction of the OgunComis platform — popularly known as the electronic affidavit system — we experienced significant challenges. Affidavits could not easily be verified. Forgery had become widespread, and corruption had become deeply entrenched in the administration of oaths.”
“It therefore became necessary to reform the system. One of the seven-point agendas of the Honourable Chief Judge, since assuming office in 2018, has been the digitalisation of the Ogun State Judiciary. His Lordship has consistently pursued that objective. To achieve this, the judiciary partnered with a technology company to establish the OgunComis platform.
“Incidentally, this company does not operate only in Ogun State. Similar systems are in operation in Oyo, Ondo, Rivers, the Federal Capital Territory, and Lagos State. If you independently compare affidavit fees across these jurisdictions, you will discover that only Lagos State charges less than Ogun State.
“Lagos is able to charge lower fees because it has a much larger volume of users as the busiest judicial jurisdiction in Nigeria. The OgunComis platform ensures that affidavits can be authenticated, eliminates cash transactions, significantly reduces opportunities for corruption, and enables users to complete the process entirely online.
“Today, anyone can depose to an affidavit from the comfort of their home using a mobile phone or computer without having to travel to any courthouse. I believe it is important to clarify that issue because there appears to be some misunderstanding; the restrictions apply only to general affidavits, not court process affidavits.”
“There are two categories of affidavit; the first is court process affidavits, which include witness statements on oath and affidavits connected with pending court proceedings.
“The second is general affidavits, such as affidavits for change of name, declaration of age, loss of documents, confirmation of ownership, and similar matters.
“For court process affidavits, lawyers face absolutely no restriction. They may file as many witness statements on oath and related court processes as required in any case.
“The limitation applies only to general affidavits. This policy was introduced to curb abuse, reduce fraudulent activities, and enhance security because these affidavits are generated from standard templates that members of the public can complete themselves without necessarily engaging a lawyer.”
Accordingly, the restriction to four general affidavits per day does not affect the core litigation work of legal practitioners.
“Some of the issues they have raised have already been discussed with the judiciary. We have a Bar and Bench Forum, which meets regularly…”
