Arbitration could help in the amicable resolution of conflicts
Last week, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) notified its members of the National Policy on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 2024-2028 following the replacement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1998 with the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023. We join other stakeholders to commend the new dispensation that should advance a quick dispensation of justice in the country. We also ask that it be embraced.
For several years, there have been campaigns that Nigerians should be more disposed to alternative dispute resolution instruments to free the courts from unnecessary cases. In promoting the idea, a former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mahmud Mohammed once advocated that Judges should be evaluated and promoted based on the number of cases decided through ADR in addition to the number of cases determined through the formal legal system. Now that ADR has been officially incorporated into the justice administration system in the country, the main challenge is to address whatever impediments there may be in its implementation and get Nigerians to embrace the idea.
In a milieu where a case could take up to 30 years to conclude, going through the court system in Nigeria is not only time consuming but also expensive. Besides, corruption within the judicial system has almost rendered useless the basic tenets of rule of law as courts of coordinate jurisdiction render different opinions on similar facts. With that, they make a mockery of the pillar upon which the operational British legal system was built. That explains why many critical stakeholders have for years been advocating for the adoption of ADR in Nigeria.
It is indeed interesting that it was the fascination by the manner disputes were amicably resolved by African people through mediation and arbitration during the colonial era that made the British authorities to integrate the ADR into their legal system. Since this idea served African people well in the past, there is no reason why we should jettison the idea. Those who rely on ADR to resolve their disagreements are likely to spend less money compared to those who choose the adversarial court system. ADR is also convenient to use as it allows parties and their witnesses to take their time. It may dispense with oral hearings and rely only on documents. Apart from being convenient, it is also very flexible; much unlike litigation which is rigid.
Perhaps the most compelling argument for ADR is that it is most suitable for our environment. Being conciliatory in nature, parties are not likely to become enemies after their disagreement has been resolved. When three arbitrators render an opinion on a dispute, their decision is likely to be correct and should ordinarily enjoy more acceptability than the decision of a judge. Again, because ADR takes advantage of modern technology in resolving disputes, it is more precise, efficient, and fast. Today, judges spend a long time in determining cases to the detriment of the rule of law in the country.
However, despite the foregoing, many people remain sceptical of the efficacy of ADR hence the preference for taking matters to court. Enforcement is perhaps the biggest challenge. In a nation where politicians and their supporters hardly accept electoral defeats, there is always the possibility that those who get unfavourable verdicts in arbitration could resort to the regular court thus making the entire exercise a waste of time. Yet, all factors considered, we subscribe to the position that under our current circumstance, mediation and arbitration may help in the amicable resolution of judicial conflicts in our country. And we urge Nigerians to embrace the new ADR Act for dispute resolution.
Thisday