Lawyers across Ogun State have returned to court after concluding a three-day boycott of judicial proceedings, while the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) says it remains committed to resolving its dispute with the Ogun State Judiciary through dialogue.
Chairman of the NBA Abeokuta Branch, Isaac Aderemi, confirmed during an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, that the warning boycott ended as scheduled on July 8.
“The boycott has ended. We gave a minimum of seven days’ notice, and we gave the date. Today is July 9 already, so it was a three-day thing,” he said.
Although court activities have resumed, Aderemi disclosed that senior members of the legal profession are already mediating between the Bar and the judiciary to find a lasting solution to the contentious policies that prompted the industrial action.
He revealed that respected legal practitioners from within and outside Ogun State had contacted the association since the boycott began, expressing willingness to facilitate dialogue. While describing the interventions as encouraging, he noted that no timeline had yet been agreed for resolving the impasse.
According to Aderemi, the boycott followed months of unsuccessful engagements with the judiciary over policies that lawyers believe have increased the cost of litigation and restricted access to justice.
He explained that the dispute stemmed from repeated complaints raised by members of the NBA branches in Abeokuta, Sagamu and Ota during monthly meetings. The branches subsequently wrote formal letters and held discussions with judicial authorities, but the concerns remained unresolved.
The NBA identified three major policies at the centre of the disagreement.
The first is the N100,000 fee charged for each virtual court sitting.
While acknowledging the importance of digitalising court processes, Aderemi argued that the fee is excessive because lawyers and their clients still bear the cost of internet access and equipment required for virtual proceedings.
The association is also protesting the increase in affidavit charges following the introduction of the electronic affidavit system.
According to Aderemi, the minimum fee rose from N200 to N1,500, placing additional financial pressure on litigants who often question lawyers about the sharp increase.
Another issue is the judiciary’s directive limiting lawyers to filing a maximum of four affidavits daily.
Aderemi argued that the restriction delays legal proceedings, especially for firms handling multiple cases, and could expose litigants to default penalties where statutory filing deadlines are missed.
He maintained that these policies collectively hinder legal practice and limit access to justice, particularly for ordinary Nigerians.
While insisting that the protest was never intended to pressure the judiciary, Aderemi said the boycott succeeded in drawing public attention to issues that previous letters, meetings and consultations had failed to highlight.
According to him, widespread media coverage of the dispute marked a significant achievement in the NBA’s advocacy efforts, generating national conversations about the challenges facing court users in Ogun State.
Aderemi stressed that the association supports the judiciary’s digital transformation but believes the financial burden should not be transferred to litigants.
He proposed reducing the N100,000 virtual hearing fee to N25,000 per case and cutting the minimum affidavit fee from N1,500 to N500.
He also called for the removal of the restriction limiting lawyers to four affidavits daily.
The NBA chairman further claimed that Ogun State currently has the highest virtual hearing fee in the country, noting that Lagos charges N30,000 for similar proceedings, while some states allow virtual hearings without imposing additional fees beyond internet costs.
Rejecting suggestions that the increased charges were designed to boost internally generated revenue, Aderemi argued that the judiciary should be adequately funded through statutory government allocations rather than imposing heavy financial obligations on court users.
On the possibility of further industrial action, he said the association’s next steps would be determined collectively by its members, adding that all options remain open while dialogue continues.
