The Ogun State Judiciary has defended the processes leading to the introduction of its digital justice reforms, insisting that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) was adequately consulted before the implementation of the new policies that have sparked opposition from some branches of the association.
Speaking on Friday during an exclusive interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun state, the Chief Registrar of the High Court of Ogun State, Mr. Olakulehin Luqman Oke, maintained that due process was followed at every stage of the reforms, adding that the judiciary found it surprising that the NBA resorted to a boycott without first formally notifying the court authorities.
“Before the judiciary even commenced the virtual hearings, we wrote to the NBA. Before the rules were amended, the judiciary wrote to the NBA. When these three branches decided they wanted to go on a boycott, they did not write to the judiciary to inform the judiciary that they were going on a boycott. They issued a press release, and we saw a press release like every other”
The Chief Registrar’s remarks came in response to concerns earlier raised by the Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Abeokuta Branch, Chief Kayode Aderemi, who a similar media chat on Frontline, had maintained that the three-day boycott was not a spontaneous decision but the culmination of months of consultations and engagements with the Ogun State Judiciary, stating that the affected branches passed resolutions at their meetings, wrote formal letters to the judiciary and held discussions with judicial authorities, but alleged that there was no positive response.
Responding to questions on whether the judiciary was considering reviewing the controversial policies following the industrial action by the Abeokuta, Sagamu and Ota branches of the NBA, Oke stressed that the legal profession is governed by laid-down procedures which every stakeholder must respect.
According to him, the same procedural standards the judiciary observed before introducing the reforms should also have guided the association before embarking on its protest.
I would say that for everything that anyone wants to do in the legal profession, there are processes. The profession is regulated by principles and procedures. There are processes and procedures that must be followed before anything is done by anyone, including the courts.That’s why I mentioned to you that before the judiciary even commenced the virtual hearings, we wrote to the NBA,” he reiterated.
The Chief Registrar explained that engagement between the judiciary and the NBA did not begin after the controversy emerged, noting that consultations had started long before the implementation of the virtual hearing system and the amendment of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules.
“I will answer by saying that before the commencement of the virtual hearings, the High Court’s civil procedure rules were amended. This amendment started, I think, as far back as 20222.”, he said.
Recounting the sequence of events, Oke said the judiciary formally communicated with the NBA before amending the court rules, while additional notifications were also sent ahead of the commencement of virtual court sittings. Despite these engagements, he expressed disappointment that the affected NBA branches did not extend the same courtesy before announcing their boycott.
“Draft copies were submitted to the five branches of the Nigerian Bar Association in Ogun State for their observation, for their inputs, for their comments …High Court’s civil procedure rule, the draft copy, contained the provisions that govern the virtual hearings in Ogun State. This hundred thousand Naira fee is in that rule and was contained in the draft copy that was forwarded to all the branches of the NBA in Ogun State for them to make inputs and for them to comment. Also before the commencement of the e-affidavits, letters had been written to the five branches of the NBA in Ogun state. Of the five branches, only one branch responded. That branch was the NBA Ota branch.” he added.
While acknowledging the constitutional right of the NBA to organise a boycott, Oke maintained that professional ethics required the association to formally notify the leadership of the judiciary before taking such action.
He argued that mutual respect and institutional courtesy remain fundamental principles of the legal profession, describing law as a noble profession where communication between the Bench and the Bar should be conducted with decorum and professionalism adding that the judiciary ought to have been formally informed of the association’s decision before the action was made public.
“The legal profession relies on the principle of respect and courtesy. That’s why it’s called a noble profession, because we are gentlemen, and we should relate as gentlemen.” he stated.
The Chief Registrar Oke maintained that while the NBA was well within its rights to organise an industrial action, the manner in which the boycott was declared fell short of the professional standards expected within the legal community.
“Does the Nigerian Bar Association have a right to boycott? Yes. But courtesy and respect requires the Nigerian Bar Association to write to the Honorable Chief Judge or the Chief Registrar of the High Court or the Chief Registrar of the Customary Court of Appeal to say that we are embarking on this on so so date for whatever reason.” he said.
Beyond the issue of communication, Oke questioned the scope of the boycott, arguing that several courts affected by the action were not directly connected to the policies being challenged.
He noted that the boycott extended to the Customary Court of Appeal despite the fact that the court neither conducts virtual hearings nor operates the electronic affidavit system being protested by lawyers.
According to him, “The boycott was extended to the Customary Court of Appeal. The Customary Court of Appeal does not conduct virtual hearings. The Customary Court of Appeal does not, as we speak, use e-affidavits.”
The chief registrar also pointed out that most Magistrates’ Courts only recently began limited virtual proceedings, while Customary Courts have not adopted either virtual hearings or electronic affidavits.
“The magistrate courts largely, very few magistrate courts have started using the virtual hearings, and that was just this year. So they picked all these courts and they instructed to boycott all those courts that have nothing to do with the issues that they say they have a quarrel with.” he added.
Oke further argued that the absence of prior communication from the protesting NBA branches made constructive engagement more difficult, particularly because the judiciary had consistently notified and consulted the association before introducing its digital reforms.
“So having gone on a boycott without informing the Honorable Chief Judge formally or informally, it is difficult to engage, as it were, because these are issues that the judiciary extended the courtesy of informing them about prior to the commencement”
Addressing concerns about consultation, the Chief Registrar rejected suggestions that the judiciary had introduced the reforms without adequate engagement with lawyers.
He disclosed that the Bar and Bench Forum in Ogun State had met three times this year, in January, May and June—providing opportunities for dialogue between judges and representatives of the NBA.
“I will say that we have a bar and bench forum in Ogun States and the forum meets regularly. The forum has met thrice this year. In January, in May, and in June. The meeting in May was the public lecture of the bar and bench forum which brought all lawyers as well as all judges. Aside from that public lecture, the forum itself, which is made up of all the heads of the judicial divisions and the Chief Judge of the State as well as the Chairman and Secretaries of the five MBA branches, still met last month,” the chief registrar explained.
He also revealed that at the June meeting of the forum, extensive discussions were held on the digital reforms, with judiciary officials providing detailed explanations to NBA chairmen and secretaries from across the state.
“At the forum meeting in June, we had a conversation around these issues. Clear explanations were made to the Chairman and Secretaries of the branches present on these issues”
The Chief Registrar explained that contrary to suggestions that dialogue had broken down, discussions at the June meeting ended with both sides agreeing to continue consultations until common ground was reached.
He said the judiciary left the meeting believing that engagement would continue, only to later learn of the boycott through press statements issued by the affected NBA branches.
He said, “They mentioned their reservations. We made explanations, and we left that meeting with the understanding that we will continue to talk until we arrive at a conclusion. But apparently we were the only ones that held that belief, because as far as I know, there was an open communication line that parties were utilizing.”
Beyond those meetings, Oke said the judiciary had begun sensitising lawyers about its planned electronic filing system nearly two years before its rollout.
He disclosed that four separate webinars were organised before the launch of the electronic affidavit platform, with invitations extended to lawyers both within and outside Ogun State.
According to him, the webinars were designed to educate legal practitioners on the operation of the new platform and prepare them for its implementation.
He said: “We have started sensitizing the bar from as far back as two years ago about the commencement of this e-filing. Before we commenced the e-affidavit in February, four sensitization webinars were organized. Members of the five branches of the MBA in Ogun state and outside Ogun state were invited to participate in those webinars. Those webinars were conducted to sensitize the bar about the commencement of the e-affidavit system and how it would work and how they were to use it and all of that.”
Turning to the controversy surrounding the restriction on electronic affidavits, the Chief Registrar clarified what he described as widespread misconceptions about the policy.
He explained that the limitation of four daily filings applies only to general affidavits generated through standard templates on the Ogun Court Management Information System (Ogun CoMis) platform and not to affidavits connected with active court proceedings.
He said: “There has been a misconception as to what the limitation on four affidavits means or what it does not mean. There are two categories of affidavits on the Ogun CoMis platform. There are general affidavits. These are affidavits that are not connected to any active case in court…Affidavits like change of name, declaration of marriage, declaration of age, change of ownership, general template affidavits. These affidavits that exist are templates on the Ogun CoMis platform that anyone can depose to without involving a legal practitioner”
Clarifying the distinction between the two categories of affidavits processed through the Ogun Court Management Information System (Ogun CoMis), Oke explained that while restrictions were introduced for general affidavits to curb abuse and fraudulent activities, documents directly related to ongoing court proceedings remain exempt from such limitations.
“Court-connected affidavits, by court-connected affidavits, I mean affidavits like verifying affidavits, witness statements on oath, do not have any restrictions whatsoever because those affidavits can only be filed by legal practitioners.” he added.
Oke revealed that since the introduction of the Ogun CoMis platform in February 2026, no restriction has been placed on the number of court-related affidavits lawyers can file, insisting that the daily limit was introduced solely to combat fraud associated with general affidavits.
He explained that the judiciary had previously encountered cases of abuse involving general affidavits, making the safeguard necessary to preserve the integrity of court processes.
According to him: “And from the inception of the Ogun CoMis platform in February 2026, there has been no restriction in place on court-connected affidavits, But for general affidavits, which I have mentioned to you, those restrictions are necessary to prevent because we had experienced incidents of fraud on that category”
The Chief Registrar further dismissed claims that the judiciary had imposed blanket restrictions on affidavit filings, insisting that legal practitioners handling court proceedings continue to enjoy unrestricted access to the electronic filing platform.
“And as I speak, there is no restriction on the number of affidavits that a legal practitioner can file,” he said.
Addressing concerns over the ₦1,500 electronic affidavit fee, the Chief Registrar argued that Ogun State’s charges are comparable to those of several other states already operating similar digital platforms. He explained that the pricing was determined after consultations and reflects the cost of maintaining the electronic system rather than serving as a revenue-generating measure.
Providing comparisons with other jurisdictions, Oke noted that Lagos charges the lowest fee because of its significantly higher transaction volume, while several other states charge amounts equal to or higher than Ogun State.
He said: “Ogun State is not the only state that offers the e-affidavit system. Lagos States, the FCT Abuja, Bayelsa, Oyo, Ondo, Rivers, all offer the same service and the lowest is 800 Naira. The highest is 2,700 Naira which Lagos States. Rivers State charges 1,500 naira. Bayelsa State charges 1,500 naira. In the FCT it is 2,000 naira and Ogun State is 1,500. So our fee is not the highest. It is at par with majority of the states that have migrated to this platform.”
While acknowledging that Ogun State’s ₦100,000 virtual hearing fee may currently be among the highest in the country, Oke defended the charge by insisting that the state’s virtual court system delivers efficient and reliable service.
“It may be. It may be. It is also the most efficient. It is also the most efficient. And this cannot be disputed.”
On the increase in oath fees from ₦200 to ₦1,500, Oke said the previous charge had remained unchanged for many years despite changing economic realities.
He said: “The question we need to be asking is when was this 200 Naira oath fee fixed? How long ago was it fixed? How long ago?And what was the prevailing circumstance in the country at the time when that fee was fixed? My mind tells me it’s been over 10 years, because as far as I can remember, 200 Naira is the fee for oaths”
The chief registrar argued that the old system had encouraged widespread forgery, with fake court stamps and unauthorised oath commissioners operating outside court premises.
“And what was the situation when 200 Naira was the fee for oaths? Oaths were being forged. You can stand by the roadside and depose an affidavit and pay 200 Naira without any evidence of authentication or whatsoever. People were going about with affidavits that the courts had absolutely no record of”, he stated.
According to him, many affidavits produced under that arrangement were never recorded by the judiciary, making them impossible to verify.
“You cannot come back three weeks down the line and get a copy of that same affidavit in the court, because it does not exist. It has not come to the coffers of the government. You do not have a genuine document in your possession. You do not have a document that can be verified by anybody at any time in your possession.” he added.
Oke however noted that the digitised system now guarantees authenticity, proper documentation and traceability of affidavits, eliminating fraudulent practices that had persisted for years.
He said, “These are the things that the Ogun CoMis platform has come to remedy.”
Appealing to members of the legal profession, the Chief Registrar urged both the Bench and the Bar to embrace reforms aimed at modernising the administration of justice, arguing that changing economic realities make it impossible to sustain outdated fee structures while expecting improved service delivery.
“We cannot say we want change in one hand and then say we cannot pay the cash for the change that we want. We cannot want a system that works and still want to operate that system using an outdated fee structure.”
Oke also rejected calls for the continued operation of manual affidavit processes alongside the electronic platform, insisting that such an arrangement would only perpetuate the problems the reforms were designed to eliminate.
“We cannot say that we see that there is a problem wrong with this system and we should continue to run it side by side, a system that we can see is working and a system that works well for the administration of justice.”
On the possibility of further negotiations, Oke disclosed that the next formal engagement between the judiciary and the NBA would likely take place at the commencement of the new legal year in September, noting that the courts were preparing to begin their annual vacation during which only urgent matters would be entertained.
“That will probably be at the commencement of the new legal year which will be sometime in September because the court is going on vacation within the next week. So only urgent cases will be attended to within this period”, he stated.
