International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Scope (IRJMS), 2024; 5(2 ): 313-322

Original Article | ISSN (O): 2582-631X DOI: 10.47857/irjms.2024.v05i02.0464

Developing a Legal Framework for Virtual Court Hearing in

Nigeria
Brown Etareri Umukoro*, Moses Ogorugba Omozue, Avwerosuo Oghenedoro
Delta State University, Oleh Campus, Abraka, Nigeria *Corresponding Author’s Email: beumukoro@delsu.edu.ng
Abstract
This article focuses on the legal framework on virtual court hearing in Nigeria. There is a vacuum in the Nigerian legal
system that was brought to limelight during the Corona virus pandemic and this gap relates to the issue of justice being
denied and delayed in times of emergency such as pandemic, war and even insecurity which halt the flow of human activities
and smooth administration of the legal system. Having regard to the mandatory requirements of the fundamental rights’
provisions in the Nigerian Constitution which guarantee fair hearing and the right to be tried before a court of law within
a reasonable time, it becomes imperative to define the legal foundation for the application of the procedure for virtual court
hearing in Nigeria in the absence of an explicit constitutional safeguard. The article considers the legality of virtual court
hearing in the Nigerian legal system and the constitutional requirement that trials should be held in public and within a
reasonable time. The article observes that though there is no direct constitutional backing for the application of virtual
court hearing in Nigeria, there are explicit rules of court regulating the practice as a remedy in the time of emergency. The
study finds that the practice of virtual court hearing has already gained recognition in the Nigerian legal system, however,
there is need for a constitutional backing on the framework in the light of the conflicting opinions and skepticisms
surrounding the practice.
Keywords: Constitutionality, Courtroom, Public place, Virtual court hearing, Virtual hearing application.
Introduction times to enhance the right to fair trial by an
Fair hearing has always been a human right issue independent and impartial tribunal. This implies
and a fundamental right in almost all jurisdictions. that prevailing emergencies like the corona virus
Thus, the integrity of every trial is founded on pandemic, insecurity and even war ought not to be a
whether or not the trial is conducted in accordance reason to suspend judicial proceedings. In Nigeria,
with law. To this extent, the courts have a special role the activities of the Indigenous People of Biafra
in ensuring that the fundamental right to fair hearing (IPOB) in the Southeast and the Islamic State of West
is strictly adhered to. Salient among the fundamental Africa Province (ISWAP) in the Northeast have all
provisions as provided in the Constitution of the increased the insecurity concerns in the country.
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is These have also halted the smooth running of the
the right be tried within reasonable time. The administration of justice hence the agitations to
Constitution provides that any person who is openly establish the practice of virtual hearing in the
arrested or detained shall be brought before a court Nigerian legal system is gaining more momentum.
of law and that any person charged before a court of The corona virus pandemic is one of the emergencies
law shall be entitled to fair hearing within a that have caused health concerns globally bringing
reasonable time (1). The Constitution envisages an all human activities to a standstill. In other to meet
unhindered access to justice (2) at all time, which is with the exigencies of the time, some jurisdictions
a fundamental pillar of democracy, and which cannot sought for a solution which enabled them to carry
be suspended or limited (3). Therefore, it is out judicial functions during the pandemic. For
important to ensure that the Nigerian judicial instance, as England went into lockdown, the United
institutions continue to perform their functions at all Kingdom’s Supreme Court by a statement dated 23rd

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
(Received 04th January 2024; Accepted 21st April 2024; Published 30th April 2024)
Brown et al., Vol 5 I Issue 2

March 2022 posted on its website announced that it means of audio-visual platform and teleconferences
would hear all cases and deliver judgments through applications such as Zoom, google meet, skype,
videoconferencing (4). This brought to the limelight Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp, telegram etc. (6). This
the necessity of virtual court hearing as a permanent is a form of court hearing that enables Judges,
and established procedure in some jurisdictions. In lawyers, court staff, security personnel, witnesses,
Nigeria, apart from the corona virus, other factors and stakeholders to attend hearings using the
such as insecurity, kidnapping, conflicts between internet. The hybrid hearing relates to proceedings
cattle herdsmen and farmers, the Islamist Movement held with some of the parties in a particular place
of Nigeria (IMN) in Central Nigeria, the Niger Delta usually the open court room or the Judge’s chamber
Vigilante (NDA), the Indigenous People of Biafra while others join online. Full virtual proceeding
(IPOB) in the Southeast and the Islamic State West involves remote hearing in which all the parties
Africa Province in the Northeast part of Nigeria have including judicial officers and the staff are expected
worsened the issue of insecurity in Nigeria thereby to join the proceeding online from wherever they
halting the smooth administration of Justice. This are.
has contributed immensely to why virtual court Hearing in a Physical Court Room
hearing should be welcome as part of the Nigerian Generally, a Court is a governmental body consisting
legal system. This article is discussed as follows: the of one or more judges who sit to adjudicate disputes
introductory section sets out what the article seeks and administer justice or a permanently organised
to achieve. The section on result and discussion body with independent judicial powers defined by
discusses the major thrust of the article. It analyses law (7). The time and place of meeting need not
the concept of virtual hearing and investigates the necessarily be fixed by law. This is why there is no
constitutionality of the practice in Nigeria. This physical courtroom designated by law as a
section also examines the challenges of adaptability permanent court. Several courts in Nigeria are
and how to integrate the practice of virtual hearing holding in rented apartments and in temporary
into the Nigerian legal system. The final section venues. This does not invalidate their proceedings. It
draws the conclusion and makes recommendations. is the presence of the bench properly constituted
that makes the court. Though, courts are expected to
Materials and Methods sit within normal working hours, i.e. between 9 am
This study is original research using the doctrinal and 4pm on week days, Judges have discretion to
research method which includes a critical review of order sittings outside these time and days. Thus, a
primary source materials like the Constitution of the physical court is wherever and whenever the judges
Federal Republic of Nigeria, relevant legislations, decide to sit at any particular time. However, it is
case laws as well as secondary materials which expected that the venue of a Court should be decent
include the opinions of experts and learned authors and accessible to the public and the time should be
in published material and dictionaries, reports and reasonable.
in the internet. Virtual Hearing Applications
These are audio visual platforms approved by the
Results and Discussion
court to carry out virtual hearing. These platforms
Conceptual Clarification according to the Lagos State High Court Practice
Virtual Hearing Directions 2020 for the Covid 19 Period can be either
The term ‘virtual hearing’ can be used zoom, Skype or any other audio-visual platform
interchangeably with the terms ‘videoconferencing,’ approved by the court (8). The word ‘any other
‘audio virtual communication,’ ‘remote hearing’ or audio-visual platform approved by the court’ implies
‘hybrid hearing’ though they have slight variations. that other platforms such as whatsapp video call,
‘Virtual’ means being able to see, hear and telegram video call, micro soft video call and the likes
communicate with another individuals in real time, can be used for virtual hearing as long as same is
using electronic means (5). A virtual hearing approved by the court. ‘Zoom meeting’ means a
therefore can be defined as a hearing in court by video conference meeting that is held, using zoom.

314
Brown et al., Vol 5 I Issue 2

One can join such meetings, through a webcam or The major argument around the above provisions is
phone. The access to the zoom meeting is by having whether or not hearings conducted in a virtual space
the login details and the password. It has a feature can be said to be a public hearing within the
where documents can be screen-shared to contemplation of the provisions of the Constitution.
participants and it has the mute and un-mute It is important to note here that the Constitution
column. does not define the word ‘public’ hence it is difficult
The Constitutionality of Virtual Court Hearing to ascertain what the draftsmen intended to achieve
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with the usage of the word public.
1999 as amended is the supreme law in Nigeria and What is a Public Place?
the legality or illegality of any law; act or omission in In the case of Edibo v State (11) the term ‘public’ was
Nigeria is subject to whether or not such law, act or defined by the Supreme Court of Nigeria as “the use
omission is inconsistent with the provision of the of everyone without discrimination. Anything,
Constitution. Any law, act or omission that is gathering or audience which is not private is public”.
inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution It also means place to which the public has access
is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency (9). (12). The literal rule is best suited for this discussion
In the case of Njoku v Jonathan & Ors (10) the Court because the word ‘public place’ as used in the
of Appeal posited that the “Constitution is the Constitution is not vague nor ambiguous and can be
grundnorm and it is sacrosanct, for it is from it that conveniently given its ordinary and dictionary
other laws are made, rights created and powers meaning without leading to absurdity. The term
conferred. It is the source from which other “public places,” using the ordinary meaning of the
tributaries emanate and the 1999 Constitution of the word, implies any enclosed places that is open to,
Federal Republic of Nigeria is the foundation upon used by, or accessible to the general public. The
which the democratic system of Government we major factor in determining whether a place is a
practice is anchored.” The Constitution does not public place is whether that place can be accessible
make any provision relating to virtual court hearing to the general public. In the case of Oyeyipo v Oyinloye
and as a matter of fact, the legal draftsmen never (13) the question of what constitutes a public place
envisaged that a time will come when it will become under section 36 (3) of the Constitution was
an issue as to hearing of cases online. suggested as being a question of fact. The Court held
Notwithstanding, the absence of constitutional in that case that a Judge may sit in chambers without
foundation should not inhibit the adoption of virtual excluding members of the public. Conversely, in the
court hearing generally as a legally recognised case of Abashi v. COP (14) the Court held that it is
procedure in Nigeria. The Constitution of the Federal unconstitutional to sit in chambers. In both cases
Republic of Nigeria does not suggest that virtual however, the facts are different and the former case
hearing is unconstitutional. For this purpose, it is was decided based on the appropriate rule of the
important to analyse the provisions of the Supreme Court. In the case of Ovunwo & Anor v. Woko
Constitution which stipulate that trials should be & Ors.(15) the Supreme Court held that the right to a
held in public. Section 36 (3) and (4) of the fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by
Constitution provides: an independent and impartial tribunal established
(3) The proceedings of a court or the proceedings of by law includes amongst others that all concerned
any tribunal relating to the matters mentioned in shall be informed of and have access to such place of
subsection (1) of this section (including the public hearing. The Court of Appeal in the case of
announcement of the decisions of the court or Kosebinu & Ors v Alimi (16) the issue was whether or
tribunal shall be held in public not the court was right to set aside a judgment of a
(4) Whenever any person is charged with a criminal trial court delivered in the Judge’s chamber in
offence, he shall unless the charge is withdrawn, violation of section 36(3) of the Constitution. The
be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a Court held that for a place to qualify under Section
reasonable time by a court or tribunal 36(3) of the Constitution as “public” it must be out
rightly accessible, and not so accessible on the basis

315
Brown et al., Vol 5 I Issue 2

of the “permission” or “consent” of the Judge.” both suits as being speculative and pre-emptive as
Flowing from the above case laws, once the no injustice was complained of as a result of the
requirement of accessibility by the public is satisfied, practice. Though the Supreme Court did not decide
such hearing can be said to be a hearing in the public the suits on their merit, Rhodes-Vivour, JSC thus
as contemplated by the Constitution. held that “as of today, virtual sitting is not
Does Virtual Court Hearing Violate Section 36 unconstitutional.” These are the cases of Attorney
of the Constitution? General of Lagos State v Attorney General of the
Virtual Hearing conducted in any Federation & the National Assembly (17) and
videoconferencing application such as zoom Attorney General of Ekiti State v Attorney General of
qualifies within the concept of public place the Federation & 2 Ors. (18) The purpose of these
discussed above and therefore constitutional. The suits was to move the apex court to make a direct
zoom application for instance is an online statement on the issue of virtual sitting in Nigeria
videoconferencing model which allows for more within the current legal system. This was to
than 100 participants at a glance provided that address the speculations and reservations
they have the password and are able to log into the entertained by judges, lawyers and legal scholars
meeting or court session using the login details. on the legality of the practice. In the case filed by
Thus, publishing the links and login details is the Atorney General of Lagos State, the applicant’s
imperative. This qualifies virtual hearing as public aim was to inquire whether virtual hearing
hearing and this should be seen as satisfying the commenced in the Lagos State High Courts or any
constitutional requirement of public access to the other court is constitutional with reference to
court proceedings or proceedings held in public. section 36 (1), (3) and (4) of the Constitution which
The study argues that once the login details are provides that court proceedings should be held in
made public, it is immaterial if any member of the public. The applicant also challenged the power of
public is unable to connect because of lack of the National Assembly to amend section 274 of the
browsing data, bad network, or absence of Constitution which permits the Chief Judge (CJ) of
appropriate electronic device. Otherwise, remote a State to make rules for regulating the practice and
court hearing may not be practicable in Nigeria for procedures in the High Courts as amending that
a longtime. Besides, all that is needed to satisfy the section to vest power on the CJs to make rules
requirement of access to physical court prescribing virtual hearing would mean delegating
proceedings is allowing the door of the court room legislative powers to the judiciary. The latter case
open to the public. It does not require faring to the was by the Attorney General of Ekiti State. It sought
open courts those who desire to attend the courts. to nullify the instruction of the Attorney General of
That is the private responsibility of the individual. the Federation made on 20th April 2020 to heads
Similarly, the issue of connectivity, availability of of all courts in the country directing virtual court
browsing data and a device with the requisite hearing. It stated that the instruction contravened
facilities to connect virtually are a private issue for the Constitution, particularly, sections 1(3), 4(6),
the individual. Further points to justify the practice 5(2) and 6(2), 36(3 and 4), 272 and 274 of the
of virtual court hearing include the following Constitution. Though the Supreme Court did not
a. The Position of the Supreme Court: The hear the cases on their merit, the pronouncement
constitutionality of virtual court hearing was which is a form of orbiter that virtual siting is not
deliberately tested by some state Attorneys unconstitutional has been relied on generally by
General at the Supreme Court during the wake of the court as giving credence to the constitutionality
the practice in Nigeria. This was after the National of remote court hearing in Nigeria. Obviously, the
Judicial Council (NJC) rolled out guidelines in 2020 decisions of the Supreme Court have provided a
for virtual hearing as a result of the restrictions on leeway to what the judgment of the court would be
physical meetings caused by the Covid 19 when the issue of the legality of virtual hearing is
pandemic. The Supreme Court however struck out raised again at the Supreme Court as these
decisions are already serving as a procedural

316
Brown et al., Vol 5 I Issue 2

validation of the practice of hybrid virtual sitting in INEC v Advance Congress of Democrats (ACD) & Ors.
the lower courts and virtual sitting for the purpose (21), it was held that what is not expressly
of delivering judgment and rulings by the Court of prohibited is impliedly allowed. Consequently, in
Appeal. Though the NJC Guidelines were meant to the context of the Constitution, virtual hearing
address the challenges of Covid 19 pandemic, having not been prohibited, is impliedly permitted
several courts including the Court of Appeal Asaba d. Practice Directions and Guidelines: In other to
in Delta State of Nigeria delivered several accommodate virtual court hearings in Nigeria
judgments virtually even after the lockdowns were several heads of courts were directed to issue
removed. practice directions for VCH in order to provide a
b.Virtual Court Hearing as an Emergency legal platform upon which virtual court can be
Remedy: The major agitation against the practiced. Though there are no substantive
constitutionality of virtual hearing is that it is provisions in the statutes establishing the various
against the tenet of fair hearing as provided under courts on videoconferencing or virtual sitting
section 36(3) of the Constitution. As a rule of hearing generally, there is no doubt that the heads
necessity, virtual hearing is regarded as a remedy of the various courts which issued the Practised
in times of exigency and should be accommodated Directions have the constitutional powers to do so
accordingly. The Nigerian legal system has shown (22). The issuance of the practice directions on
flexibility in the application of the constitutional virtual hearing during the corona virus pandemic
safeguards on fair hearing. The Nigerian legal and the subsequent application of same where
system allows certain applications to be made ex- different Judges gave rulings and Judgment
parte. Such applications are brought without virtually connotes that this practice is legal and has
informing or putting the other party on notice. This been incorporated into the legal system. The
ordinarily is an infraction on the provisions of the Constitution must therefore be interpreted
Constitution on fair hearing. In the case of whenever the need arises to give credence to its
Njokanma & Anor v. Uyana (19) the Court held: “ex- validity.
parte motion is one in which the applicant for some Constitutional Amendment Option
cogent reasons, cannot put the other party or First, it is important to understand what a
parties on notice … Both are acceptable in law. The constitution is and what it should contain. In
general practice; however, is that motions are filed ascertaining the above, reliance is placed on the case
in Court on notice. Ex-parte motions are filed but of FCDA v Ezinkwo (23) where the Court of Appeal
sparingly considered by the Court in extreme or held that “the Constitution being the organic law of
special circumstances.” the country and the fons et origo from which all other
The study contends that if an ex-parte motion is laws derive their validity. No part of it can be
recognised under the Nigerian legal system as a described to be adjectival or procedural law. The
remedial application in the time of emergency Constitution is a substantive law.” Admittedly,
notwithstanding the fact that it robs the matters of procedure should not be found in a
respondent of the opportunity of being heard, and constitution. If the Constitution is a substantive law
ordinarily a violation of the respondent’s and not procedural then amending it for the purpose
constitutional right to fair hearing, then virtual of virtual hearing is also not important since the issue
hearing, being a practice during emergency, does of court hearing is a matter of procedure. According
not breach the constitutional right to fair hearing. to Pinheiro (24): “A Constitution is not meant to
c. No Express Prohibition of Virtual Court provide laws and regulations, for every aspect of a
Hearing: There is no express prohibition of virtual functioning society. It is usually neither practical nor
court hearing in the Constitution; neither is there beneficial for a constitution, when envisioned as a
any statute prohibiting the hearing of cases long-term, general framework for operation of the
virtually in the courts. The principle of law has State, to go into details. It is impossible to predict how
remained inviolable to the effect that, whatever is society will look in the future and what its specific
not prohibited is permitted (20). Also, in the case of circumstances and needs will be.”

317
Brown et al., Vol 5 I Issue 2

He notes further that the Constitution does not include that which is stored in electronic form
provide for the procedures regulating how the provided it meets the requirement stated in
executive and the legislative arm of government subsection 2 of that section. Thus, original
perform their administrative functions such as how documents can be in electronic form and such can be
the executive arm of government is to hold its inspected electronically and tendered during virtual
meetings or how the legislature would hold hearing. Where a relevant document does not exist
parliamentary sessions (24). It is therefore not originally in electronic form the scanned copies of
necessary to amend the Constitution to specify how the document filed along with the suit should be
the Judiciary should hold court sessions. He states admissible as secondary evidence under virtual
further that virtual hearing relates to how the courts hearing. The Court should presume such documents
carry out their judicial function in delivery justice genuine until the adverse party proves them
and as such a matter of procedure. otherwise. The burden of proving that the document
This study seeks to differ from the postulations of the is not genuine is that of the adverse party.
learned scholar. It is not correct to maintain as a The provisions of the Evidence Act 2023 (as
general rule that a constitution does not contain amended) go further to show that virtual hearing is
procedure. The Nigerian Constitution contains a gaining more grounds in Nigeria. The Act provides
handful of provisions relating to procedures of court. that any affidavit sworn before any Judge, officer or
An example is the provision relating to the issue of other person duly authorised to take affidavits in
the jurisdiction of the courts (25). However, why the Nigeria whether in person or through audio visual
law makers may not amend the Constitution to means may be used in the courts in all cases where
provide detail procedures on virtual court hearing, it affidavits are admissible (28). The use of audio-
can provide a general recognition to the practice of visual means for affidavit is further provided for
virtual court hearing. This becomes the under sections 110 and 119(2) of the Evidence Act as
constitutional platform on which the heads of courts amended. The term ‘audio visual communication’ is
would issue practice directions to enable the courts defined to mean being able to see, hear and
hold hearings virtually. communicate with another individual in real time,
Evidential Issues on Virtual Court Hearing using electronic means (29). The above amendments
The Evidence Act is the statute that regulates have proven that evidence can be taken through
evidence in Nigerian courts. The Act sets out the audio visual means.
procedures for giving evidence, tendering of Virtual Hearing in the Administration of
documents. Others include the relevancy of facts, Criminal Justice
admissibility of evidence, burden of proof and issues In Nigeria, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act
bordering of hearing of evidence in court. Certain (ACJA) enacted in May 2015 provides for the
provisions of the Evidence Act shall be considered. administration of criminal justice and for related
The Evidence Act (2011) provides that ‘In any matters in the courts. It is the substantive and
proceeding where direct oral evidence of a fact procedural law that deals on the guidelines to be
would be admissible, any statement made by a adhered to in criminal trials. The ACJA does not
person in a document which seems to establish that however have any provisions expressly prohibiting
fact shall on production of the original document, be criminal trials held virtually. The Act expressly
admissible of that fact’. (26) The question that arises provides for video hearing of witness in specific
therefore is: can the original document envisaged by instances where the court deems it necessary to
section 83(1) of the Evidence Act be produced and protect the identity of the victim or a witness. In
confirmed in a virtual hearing? Furthermore, the Act such instances, the court may take or receive
defines primary evidence as the document itself evidence by video link (30). The Administration of
produced for the inspection of the court (27). Can Criminal Justice Law of Delta State 2022 (ACJL) also
such primary document be presented during virtual provides expressly for video conferencing and this
hearing? It is our view that the answer is yes. Section move shows the willingness in the legal system to
84 of the Evidence Act 2011 defines ‘document’ to adapt to the trend of technology in justice deliver.

318
Brown et al., Vol 5 I Issue 2

The ACJL provides that in any proceeding, a Judge or even formatted by high internet infiltrators and
Magistrate may either suo moto or upon an thereby make these items unavailable for the use of
application of a party direct that evidence be given the court and the public. Technological experts
in the ordinary way or in an alternative way (31). should be employed to provide high cyber security
The alternative way to give evidence includes any to the virtual hearing platforms to be used by the
practical and technical means to enable the judicial courts.
officer and the legal practitioner see and hear the Lack of Technological Infrastructure
witness giving evidence (32). This means hearing Technological Infrastructural requirements such as
which may not be within the court room provided the desktop, laptop, smartphone, internet
the judicial officer can see or hear the person giving connectivity, printers, devices ensuring
evidence. It is our contention that this law uninterrupted power supply, camera, microphones,
contemplates video conferencing and the likes as a speakers, display unit, and adequate lighting are
means of virtual hearing. To settle the ambiguity necessary for virtual hearing. The absence of these
that may arise from the above provision, the ACJL affects the courts, the litigants and the legal
goes further to state that the Judge or Magistrate practitioners who are to participate in the virtual
must give each party an opportunity to be heard hearing. In a report to premium times newspaper
either in chambers or if the Judge or Magistrate the Chief Information Officer of the Federal High
deems it expedient, through a video link (33). Court in corroborating this challenge above stated
Adaptability to Virtual Court Hearing that lack of funds had hampered the installation of
in Nigeria: Factors and Challenges virtual court facilities across all its jurisdictions
(34). The infrastructure requirements of the courts
Lack of Technological Know How
can be addressed by ensuring budgetary allocation
Virtual hearing requires high level of technological
for development of designated website for live court
knowhow in accessing and participating in the
streaming, provision of internet and power supply
proceedings. The fear has been expressed that
for courts.
virtual court hearing may shutout litigants who are
Inadequate Laws Regulating Virtual Court
not tech savvy or who cannot afford the requisite
Hearing
facilities. The technological knowhow includes how
This is another challenge that is faced by virtual
to operate the computer or phones as the case may
court hearing. Laws are needed for the effective
be, proper acquaintance with the video conferencing
running of any proceedings. By this we mean the
platform so as to understand its workings and styles
rules of court that govern the workings of the court.
during hearing. This challenge is a burden on the
Just as there are Rules for normal court proceedings,
courts, the staffs, the lawyers as well as the litigants.
there should be rules of court expressly regulating
While this challenge does not affect the legality of
virtual proceedings so as to ensure that virtual
the procedure it surely affects a section of the
hearing proceedings are generally and legally
Nigerian society, particularly, litigants and courts in
admissible under the Nigerian legal system. While
rural and remote areas. To this extent, the NJC
there is need for a constitutional framework for the
Guidelines restricted application of the virtual
practice of virtual court hearing, there is need for
hearing to matters which do not involve the hearing
incorporation of this practice in the Rules of Court
of evidence.
and Practice Direction. It is expected that more
Hacking and Cyber Security
heads of courts would have amended their rules of
There are fears too that hackers can break into the
court since 2020 when the NJC set out the
process. Hackers may breach the video conferencing
Guidelines. This will allay the uncertainties and
process with the purpose of stalling the hearing and
doubts on the legality of the practice. In particular,
or even ruling or judgment which they feel might be
there is need for the amendment of the Matrimonial
injurious to them. Furthermore, documents and
Causes Rules of 1983 which still expect petitioners
recordings from virtual hearings that are stored in
seeking for dissolution of marriages and other
the website of the court can be tempered with and
matrimonial reliefs to be physically present in court

319
Brown et al., Vol 5 I Issue 2

to give evidence no matter where they reside - in the screen for the virtual hearing and give evidence
World. Amending these rules to accommodate without delay from any location.
virtual hearing in deserving circumstances will Probono Services
enhance justice in matrimonial cases in Nigeria. Virtual hearing would be of immense benefit to
Bad Network probono lawyers. These are lawyers rendering free
Network connection is a very important aspect of all legal services. Free legal services are seen as an
virtual meetings including virtual court sittings. aspect of social commitment by lawyers to the
Unfortunately, network interconnectivity is a major society. It is a form of giving back to the society. One
challenge in Nigeria. Telecommunication networks of the key requirements for lawyers in Nigeria to be
are still poor in Nigeria and worse in the rural areas. inducted as a Senior Advocate is is the number of
The factors responsible for poor network free services offered free to indigent citizens that
connections include congestion of the network and can not afford legal fees (38). The Rules of
poor electricity supply. All telecommunication base professional conduct further mandate that a lawyer
stations in Nigeria have standby power generating assigned to defend an indigent prisoner must not
sets which run for a long time in the absence of refuse such task except for substantial reasons (39).
power supply from the Power Holding Company of Free legal services to indigent defendant can be
Nigeria (35). Nigeria is a very large country enhanced by the adaptation of virtual court hearing
requiring several telecom base stations with the where a lawyer can be at liberty to represent the
attendant cost of maintenance. Though we argued defendant from the comfort of his home or office
that the availability of the login details is enough to without necessarily going through the huddles of
make virtual hearing public, poor internet heavy traffic and risk of insecurity especially since
connectivity can adversely affect the process of VCH nothing is expected in return for such brief.
and thereby make it unproductive and unreliable Witness Protection
(36). While the judiciary may not be able to direct Witnesses may refuse to come and give evidence for
telecommunication companies to provide good several reasons which include safety and health
internet connectivity for the purpose of virtual reasons and other factors which make it
hearing, there is need for adequate funding by the inconvenient for the witness to testify. The ACJA
government to enable the courts secure the best of 2015 allows evidence to be taken through
facilities for the practice. videoconferencing where the court deems it
Advantages of Virtual Hearing necessary to protect the identity of the witness in
Expert Evidence matters relating to some special offences such as
The Evidence Act provides that when the court has kidnapping, anti-terrorism and other high-risk
to form an opinion on point of foreign law, offences (40). This provision is aimed at protecting
customary law or custom, or science or art, or as to the witness who might not be willing to give
identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the evidence for fear of being attacked by the
opinions of any person skilled in that area in defendants or his accomplices.
question shall be admissible as expert evidence (37). It Saves Time and Reduces Cost of Litigation
In many criminal and civil proceedings it is usually One of the most significant benefits of a virtual
expedient to have testimony from expert in areas hearing is the amount of time and money it saves. It
where the court needs clarifications. There are is a known fact that the cost of living in Nigeria is on
circumstances however where this expert may not the increase. As a matter of fact, with the current
be within the jurisdiction of the court. This includes removal of fuel subsidy by the Nigeria government,
the fact that they are usually very busy. There are the cost of transportation has increased by over 200
instances where trials have suffered series of per cent. The practice of virtual hearing will enable
adjournments because an expert witness is not lawyers and litigants to login from the comfort of
available. If video conferencing is permitted, expert their homes or offices insisted of driving to the
witness could still fully focus on work and join the courthouse and waiting in the hallway for the
hearing to start.

320
Brown et al., Vol 5 I Issue 2

Conclusion Moses structured the manuscript and developed

part of the arguments.
Having regard to the benefits of VCH analysed above
there is no doubt that virtual court sitting enhances Conflict of Interest
effective justice delivery and will enrich the There is no conflict of interest in relation to this
Nigerian legal system more than the fears which study.
antagonists of VC practice are entertaining. The law
Ethics Approval
appears settled from the rulings of the Supreme
Not Applicable
Court, the extant provisions in the Evidence Act
2023 (as amended) and the ACJA that virtual Funding
hearing has legal basis in the Nigerian legal system No funding was received to assist with the
even though there is no explicit constitutional publication of this research.
provision for it. The study reveals that access to
justice is a fundamental right and same cannot be Reference
1. Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
clogged by narrow interpretation of the of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
Constitution. Therefore, since it is a known and 2. Letto-Vanamo P. Access to Justice: A Conceptual and
acceptable fact that information communication Practical Analysis with Implications for Justice
technology has become the trend in a contemporary Reforms. VDJ. 2005; 2(1): 1-55.
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/138673/25.pdf
society, the legal society should not be left behind 3. Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. IACHR
and all efforts should be made to embrace the Calls for Guarantees for Democracy and the Rule of Law
practice of virtual hearing in Nigeria. It is suggested during the COVID-19 Pandemic. 10 June 2020.
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleas
that non contentious aspects in litigation such as
es/2020/130.asp.
motions, plea, and adoption of written addresses, 4. Mayomi K. Nigeria: A Case for the Virtual hearings of
rulings and judgments may be held virtually urgent matters during the Covid-19 Pandemic and
whether or not in emergency situation. It is going forward. https://spaajibade.com/a-case-for-the-
virtual-hearings-of-urgent-matters-during-the-covid-
recommended that detailed procedural rules should 19-pandemic-and-going-forward/
be made by the heads of court to comprehensively 5. Section 258 of the Evidence Act 2023 (as amended)
regulate the practice of virtual hearing within their 6. Olugasa O, and Davies A. Remote Court Proceedings in
Online or Justice on the Line. International Journal For
jurisdictions as it is only necessary to amend the
Court Administration. 2022; 13(2): 1-17.
Constitution to the extent of providing a general 7. Garner BA. Black’s Law Dictionary. 9th edn. West
foundation for the practice. A procedural guidelines Publishing Co. 2009; 405.
and rules of court for VCH should specify elaborately 8. Section 16 of the Practice Direction for Remote Hearing
of Cases in the Lagos State Judiciary 2020.
circumstances in which the court may be moved to https://www.aelex.com/wp-
sit virtually, what an application for VCH must content/uploads/2020/05/LAGOS-STATE-
contain and the physical background or JUDICIARY-COVID-19-PRACTICE-DIRECTION.pdf
environment in which the lawyers, parties and 9. Section 1 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
witnesses may conduct such online proceeding. 10. Njoku v Jonathan & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24496(CA) 35-
36
Abbreviation 11. Edibo v State (2007) LPELR-1012(SC) 20
Nil 12. Oxford Dictionary of Law. 2009. 7th Edition
13. Oyeyipo v Oyinloye (1987) LPELR-2883 SC 38-39
Acknowledgment 14. Abashi v COP (2004) LPELR-5597 CA
Nil 15. Ovunwo & Anor v Woko & Ors. (2011) LPELR-
2841(SC) 33.
Author Contributions 16. Kosebinu & Ors v Alimi (2005) LPELR-11442(CA)
Brown E. Umukoro prepared, developed and 17. Attorney General of Lagos State v Attorney General
edited the manuscript. Avwerosuo Oghenedoro of the Federation & the National Assembly
(Unreported Ruling in suit no SC/CV/260/2020)
conceived the idea, analysed the materials and delivered 14th of July 2020.
formulated the framework. Omozue Ogorugba https://businessday.ng/news/article/supreme-
court-dismisses-suits-against-virtual-hearing/

321
Brown et al., Vol 5 I Issue 2

18. Attorney General of Ekiti State v Attorney General of

the Federation & 2 Ors. (Unreported Ruling in suit
no. SC/CV/261/2020) delivered 14th of July 2020.
https://businessday.ng/news/article/supreme-
court-dismisses-suits-against-virtual-hearing/
19. Njokanma & Anor v Uyana (2006) LPELR-9805 CA.
20. Theophilus v FRN (2016) LPELR- 45478 CA
21. INEC v Advance Congress of Democrats & Ors. (2022)
LPELR- 58824 SC 32
22. Section 236 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria.
23. FCDA v Ezinkwo (2007) LPELR- 9015 (CA) p. 21; FRN
v Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361
24. Pinheiro K. Is a Constitutional amendment for Virtual
Court hearing really required?. Thisday.
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/05/1
9/is-a-constitutional-amendment-for-virtual-court-
hearings-really-required
25. Section 232 – 236 of the Constitution
26. Section 83 of the Evidence Act 2023(as amended)
27. Section 86 of the Evidence Act 2023(as amended)
28. Section 109 of the Evidence Act 2023(as amended)
29. Section 258 of the Evidence Act 2023(as amended)
30. Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice
Act 2015
31. Section 52(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice
Law of Delta State 2022.
32. Section 54(1)(b) of the Administration of Criminal
Justice Law of Delta State 2022.
33. Section 53(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice
Law of Delta State 2022.
34. Ejekwonyilo A. EXCLUSIVE: Strike: Why full virtual
hearing is difficult for Federal High Court - Official.
Premium Times. 19 May 2021.
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-
news/462512-exclusive-strike-why-full-virtual-
hearing-is-difficult-for-federal-high-court-
official.html?tztc=1
35. Ariyo, A. O. and Olaojoyetan, M. C. The Poor State of
Broadband in Nigeria: An Impediment to National
Development and Globalisation. Academic Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies. 2013; 2(12): 51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n12p51
36. Akanni, J. M. Advancing Online Dispute Resolution in
Nigeria: Current Opportunities, Legal Challenges and
the Ways Forward. The Journal of Sustainable
Development Law and Policy. 2020; 11(2): 431.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v11i2.6
37. Section 68, Evidence Act 2023 (as amended)
38. Article 19(7) Guidelines for the conferment of the rank
of Senior Advocate of Nigeria 2011.
https://archive.gazettes.africa/archive/ng/2011/ng-
government-gazette-dated-2011-02-16-no-10.pdf
39. Rule 38, Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal
Practitioners 2007.
https://www.nigerianlawguru.com/legislations/RUL
ES/RULES%20OF%20PROFESSIONAL%20CONDUCT
%20FOR%20LEGAL%20PRACTITIONERS.pdf
40. Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice
Act 2015.

322