As questions around judicial integrity grow louder, senior lawyers have expressed deep concern over unethical practices by support staff. Allegations of judgment leaks, bribery, and manipulation by court clerks and registrars not only undermine the justice system but also erode public confidence in the judiciary, writes Anne Agbi
Corruption in Nigeria’s court system is no longer whispered; it is a loud, persistent reality.
From allegations of judgment leakage to extortion by court staff, the integrity of the judiciary is under siege.
While the public often focuses on judges, many legal practitioners argue that the rot lies deeper among court registrars, clerks, and sheriffs who drive the justice process.
Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun has warned against the rise of unethical practices among court support staff, including leaking judgments and facilitating bribes.
Legal professionals and reform advocates are calling for a renewed focus on transparency and integrity in Nigeria’s justice system.
The consensus from leading voices in the legal sector is that the judiciary must confront its internal rot to restore public trust.
CJN cautions against ethical breaches
Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun had charged legal research assistants to uphold the highest ethical standards, warning that any act of misconduct, no matter how minor, could tarnish the image of the judiciary and attract sanctions.
She gave the charge while declaring open the 2025 Hybrid National Workshop for Legal Research Assistants at the Andrews Otutu Obaseki Auditorium, National Judicial Institute (NJI), Abuja.
Justice Kekere-Ekun described legal research assistants as the “unsung architects of judicial excellence,” whose behind-the-scenes contributions significantly impact the quality and timeliness of judicial decisions.
She emphasised that legal research assistants are not mere support staff, but professionals held to dual ethical standards, both as court employees and as lawyers admitted to the Bar.
She reminded participants that they are bound by the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, the Code of Conduct for Court Employees, and the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners.
“Your compliance with these ethical obligations is not a formality; it is a foundational pillar of justice, any breach, be it judgment leakage, bribery solicitation, or acting as intermediaries for corrupt litigants, not only compromises your integrity but casts a dark shadow on the entire judicial system.”
Embrace innovation, ethics
NJI Administrator, Justice Salisu Abdullahi, called on legal research assistants to continuously upgrade their knowledge and embrace innovation to keep pace with the demands of a rapidly evolving judicial system.
Justice Abdullahi, represented by Dr. John Onuchukwu, Director of Medical Services at the NJI, said the workshop marks a crucial milestone in strengthening judicial efficiency, fairness, and adaptability to emerging technologies.
Legal research assistants have become indispensable partners in the judicial process.
“Their ability to analyse and synthesise legal information has a direct impact on the quality and speed of court decisions.”
How to address the issues, by legal experts
Legal practitioners noted that the practices the CJN highlighted are not new.
They warn that not only do they erode public trust, but they also threaten access to justice.
Legal luminaries Felix Fagbohungbe (SAN), Muiz Banire (SAN), Prof. Foluke Dada, legal analysts Isaac Agih, and Senior lawyer Helen Ibeji paint a troubling picture of institutional decay within Nigeria’s judiciary, especially at the level of court support staff.
The experts are unanimous in calling for urgent reforms, stronger oversight, and a new ethical framework for the judiciary.
Their proposed solutions range from structured whistleblowing systems and digital access controls to staff rotation, merit-based recruitment, and decisive disciplinary action.
They asserted that without firm leadership and institutional accountability, the justice system risks collapse under the weight of its corruption.
‘Discipline must be enforced’
Dr. Banire believes the judiciary is in urgent need of a “surgical” overhaul to root out embedded corruption and unethical practices, particularly among court support staff.
He said a combination of institutional reforms and strict enforcement of discipline is necessary to restore public confidence and ensure access to justice is not compromised.
Speaking on the implications of unethical conduct within the judiciary, such as judgment leaks and illicit payments demanded by clerks.
Banire noted that such practices are already threatening the independence of the judicial system and eroding public trust.
“The judiciary requires surgery because it requires so many reforms, ranging from institutional reform to the actual definition of rules.
“Those are critical things, and most importantly, discipline, discipline, discipline.
“These are the various ways to address the rot that is already threatening the independence of the judiciary, particularly with regard to access to court.
“You can imagine somebody who has struggled to find money for an ordinary filing fee, and now they are being asked to make several other extraordinary payments that are not legal, before their case could even be scheduled for a hearing.
“That sort of thing is not only frustrating; it impairs access to justice fundamentally.”
According to Banire, the ripple effect of these practices is devastating for public perception and trust in the courts.
“Of course, it continues to downgrade trust in the judiciary; that’s the reality.
“It creates an environment of distrust. Because if, for example, at the very entry level of accessing justice, someone is already met with corruption and extortion, what kind of perception do you think they will form about the judges and the justice system as a whole?
|The impression becomes, ‘if a court clerk can collect money from me, then maybe the judge too will collect money. That’s the dangerous narrative this fosters.
“And once people begin to feel that way, they either walk away completely, discouraged and helpless, or they begin to resort to illegality to assert their rights.
“That’s how a justice system collapses, when people start believing that they cannot get justice through the courts.”
According to Chief Fagbohungbe, unethical conduct among court staff, ranging from leaking judgments to acting as bribery intermediaries, is a “major problem” threatening the very soul of the judiciary.
He emphasised that while judicial officers may not be directly involved in these unethical acts, the public often perceives otherwise.
“It’s a major problem that must be tackled head-on. These supporting staff, registrars, clerks, and process servers, are essential to the smooth running of the courts. But some of them have now become conduits for corruption.
“They leak judgments, act as middlemen for litigants looking to bribe their way to a favourable outcome, and engage in all sorts of unethical practices.”
He believes the solution lies not only in recognising their importance but also in reinforcing discipline without hesitation.
Fagbohungbe acknowledged the essential role court staff play in the justice system, but maintained that their relevance does not excuse misconduct.
“Because you need them, you cannot eliminate the role of supporting staff for the judiciary. They are very helpful and relevant.
“That’s what will keep the system in check. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a lawyer or court staff; there must be consequences for violating ethical rules.
“The answer is training and discipline. Give them regular training on ethics, on professionalism and then strictly enforce the Code of Conduct.
“Anyone found wanting should not just be warned; they should be sacked, prosecuted, or otherwise sanctioned in line with the judicial service rules. This is the only way to deter others and restore sanity to the system.”
Fagbohungbe warned that the misconduct of support staff often reflects badly on judges, even when the latter are unaware of such behaviour.
“When the public sees a registrar collecting money or hears that a judgment has been leaked, they assume the judge is complicit.
“That’s a dangerous assumption, but it is one the public understandably makes. “The consequence is a serious loss of confidence in the judiciary. People begin to see the entire justice delivery system as compromised, even when that may not be the case.”
According to Prof Dada, the gravity of Justice Kekere-Ekun’s concerns cannot be overstated.
The infiltration of corruption into judicial processes, especially through court insiders, strikes at the core of the justice system.
“These are not minor infractions, they are deeply damaging acts that erode the very foundation upon which the judiciary stands.
“When insiders compromise judgments or act as intermediaries for bribery, the public no longer believes in the impartiality or sanctity of the courts.
“And when people lose confidence in the judiciary, they turn to extrajudicial means, to violence or manipulation, because they no longer see the courts as a fair referee.
“The rule of law becomes weakened, and in its place grows cynicism and disorder.”
Last hope becoming a mockery
According to Ibeji, the rot within Nigeria’s judicial system is no longer a whispered concern; it’s a loud, persistent reality.
And despite years of complaints, she believes the problem of unethical conduct among court staff has only deepened, eroding trust and turning courtrooms into hostile zones for lawyers and litigants alike.
“I will say ‘Good Morning’ to the judiciary for finally waking up, though it’s still not too late,” Ibeji begins, her tone both hopeful and laced with frustration. “Unethical conduct by some judicial court staff has existed since I became a lawyer. This isn’t new. There has been no remedy, no end to it.
“I can’t speak much about judgment leakage, but bribery and corruption among judicial staff is second to none, it doesn’t have a part two.”
For many lawyers, the court experience often includes unspoken expectations of bribery.
Refusal, according to Ibeji, comes at a cost.
“There are times I’ve gone to court and to take something as basic as an adjournment becomes a battle.
“Why? Because I refused to give the registrar a bribe. These are ordinary court processes being deliberately stalled or sabotaged.
“And if you don’t comply, you risk being ridiculed or messed up in front of everyone.”
She continues: “Lawyers are being forced to part with their hard-earned money which is disheartening.
“And these are the people who are supposed to serve justice, the very system that is supposed to be the last hope of the common man has become a mockery.”
Responsibility lies with institutions
While many observers often look to judicial heads or senior lawyers to take the lead in reform, Fagbohungbe emphasised that responsibility must be anchored within institutional structures.
“It is the institutional structure that must bear the responsibility. Once you put guidelines in place, there is a code of conduct for them.
“If you are working in the judiciary, there must be a code of conduct, and a violation of that code should attract severe discipline. That’s the way to go. We cannot keep relying on the personalities of a few individuals. We need a system that works regardless of who is in office.”
Banire was clear that while institutions matter, leadership at the helm of each court must be held accountable.
“The institutional structure is basic; it forms the foundation. But the person in charge of the enforcement and sanitisation of that institution is the head of that court.
“Each head is responsible for what happens under their watch. That’s where leadership comes in, leaders must be bold enough to clean up the system under them.”
Poverty, low pay, root of the problem
Prof. Dada pointed to economic and systemic realities fueling unethical behaviour.
“Poor pay, inconsistent salaries and lack of career progression, all these make court staff vulnerable.
“Add to that a system with weak oversight, entrenched patronage, and minimal punishment for wrongdoing, and you get the perfect storm. If we want integrity, we must fix both the pay structure and the system of accountability.”
While not excusing the behaviour, Ibeji acknowledges that the economic climate fuels corruption.
“Poverty is the chief driver of unethical behaviour, just like with underpaid police or military officers, court staff are also trying to meet family obligations in a country where everything is expensive.”
She concludes with a measured view: “There are people who simply cannot do without bribery; it’s part of them. But with better pay, stronger monitoring, and serious consequences, we can at least reduce the practice. The judiciary doesn’t need sympathy; it needs cleansing.”
Reforming the process
Dr. Banire said: “We have to look at the processes we currently use. I’ll give you an example.
“In many cases, for you to serve court processes or enforce judgments, you need the bailiff or sheriff section.
“If that section is privatised and you’re paying officially to a licensed third party, you won’t need to bribe anyone to do their job.
“That’s the kind of reform we must begin to implement. Same thing with e-filing, it has to be structured in a way that eliminates human contact, so I don’t have to physically meet anyone before I file my case and it gets processed.
“Once these kinds of reforms are properly implemented, we reduce corruption by default. Then the next thing is discipline.
“Anybody caught sabotaging the system must be dealt with decisively. That’s how to cure the ailment in the judiciary.”
Although he hasn’t experienced such unethical interference personally, Banire acknowledged it is often about who the court staff think they can intimidate.
“Well, I have only observed from afar. For somebody like me, because of my standing, they know my position. The moment they see me, they behave themselves.
“There are some people who, when the clerks or court staff see them, don’t even try such unethical acts. They know who not to mess with.
“But I also know some younger or less experienced lawyers who would not dare to behave that way with.
“That shows you that it’s not a one-off issue, it’s widespread, and it’s about perception of vulnerability.
“That’s exactly why we need a system that protects the vulnerable and punishes those who abuse their roles.”
Prof. Dada proposed a layered approach to reform that addresses both human behaviour and institutional weaknesses.
“First, court staff need to be thoroughly screened during recruitment and trained continuously on ethics and confidentiality.
“You don’t throw someone into a high-stakes environment without teaching them the moral and legal expectations.
“Second, we need secure digital systems for drafting and sharing judgments. Not everyone should have access.
“There must be digital trails that show who accessed what and when.”
She stressed that misconduct must carry real consequences.
“Enough with mere suspensions or quiet transfers. There must be firm sanctions, dismissal, and prosecution if warranted. And staff should know that if they report wrongdoing, they will be protected.
“When the system sends the message that corruption has no safe haven, the culture begins to shift.”
While Ibeji believes that reform is still possible, she insists it must begin at the top. But herein lies the dilemma.
“All hands must be on deck if we truly want to curb unethical behaviour in our court system.
“However, the judiciary’s leadership must take the lead; they need to act.
“Sadly, the truth is that most judicial leaders are fully aware of what the staff are doing, and worse still, some are part of it.
“So how do we clean up a house when the people at the helm are enabling the rot?”
Rotate court staff, limit access to sensitive materials
One of the recurring recommendations for curbing corruption within the judiciary is the rotation of staff members and restrictions on access to sensitive case documents.
Senior Lawyer and activist, Isaac Agih, agrees that both measures could reduce opportunities for misconduct but cautions that they are not without complications.
“Rotating court staff in high-risk roles like registry or case management every two to three years can help dismantle entrenched networks of corruption,” Agih said.
“When staff remain in the same position for long periods, they build informal power structures and alliances that make it easier to manipulate case files or extort court users.
“But at the same time, we must acknowledge that frequent rotation can also disrupt institutional memory and demand continuous retraining.”
He added that restricting access to case files through digital audit systems is another step in the right direction.
“If we digitise sensitive court documents and introduce role-based access controls where each staff member can only access what is necessary for their job, it becomes easier to track who did what, when, and why. That audit trail introduces accountability.
“But again, this has to be balanced with the risk of slowing down court processes, especially in under-resourced courts where a single registrar is handling multiple roles.”
Agih believes that these approaches must be supported by broader institutional reforms.
“Rotation and access control will only work when staff are properly trained, well-supervised, and fairly compensated. Otherwise, we risk creating new bottlenecks while trying to eliminate old ones.”
While supportive of rotating staff and limiting access to sensitive documents, Prof. Dada warns these must be carefully implemented.
“Rotating staff in high-profile or vulnerable courts can prevent the entrenchment of corrupt relationships.
“It reduces the chance that someone becomes ‘the owner’ of a particular case or judge. But if you rotate too often, without preparation, you damage workflow, morale, and continuity.”
She believes such strategies should be paired with proper training and oversight to be effective.
Understanding the drivers of unethical behaviour
According to Agih, the unethical conduct of court staff is not simply a matter of personal failing, but the result of an ecosystem of neglect, poor incentives, and institutional decay.
“Many people don’t realise that corruption among judiciary support staff is often a symptom of a deeper problem.
“You have clerks, registrars, and sheriffs who are earning meagre wages—sometimes they don’t get paid for months. These are people with families, rent, and school fees to pay.
“Without proper pay and consistent oversight, it’s not surprising that some are tempted to demand bribes or cut corners to make ends meet,” he explained.
Agih noted that a culture of impunity within the judiciary makes the situation worse.
“There’s very little fear of consequences. In some courts, you’ll find support staff openly asking litigants for money to move case files, or insisting on unofficial fees for adjournments.
“What’s more troubling is that in many cases, their superiors know what’s happening but choose to look the other way.
“If there are no regular audits, no whistleblower protection, and no disciplinary enforcement, bad behavior becomes the norm.”
Systemic issues like lack of merit-based promotion and poor training also play a role.
“We have staff who haven’t received ethics training in years, if ever. Promotions are often based on connections rather than competence. It’s no surprise that morale is low and unethical conduct thrives in such an environment.”
Litigants, lawyers as enablers
Agih pointed out that court staff are not always the initiators of unethical behaviour; lawyers and litigants can be complicit too.
“There’s a culture where some lawyers and litigants are the first to offer bribes or request favours; they see it as a shortcut to avoid delays or influence outcomes.
“When court staff see this behaviour rewarded, they begin to expect it from everyone. Over time, it becomes institutionalised corruption.”
Agih emphasised that judicial reform requires collective responsibility. “We need judges, lawyers, court workers, and even the media to come together to fight this.
“It’s not enough to blame the system. Everyone has a role to play in restoring trust.”
Reflecting on her years in practice, Prof.Dada notes that unethical behaviour is sometimes initiated not by court staff, but by lawyers themselves.
“I have witnessed lawyers and litigants attempt to manipulate the process, offering money, favours, or subtle pressure on court officials to get judgments leaked or cases delayed or fast-tracked. It’s unacceptable.
“Senior lawyers have an obligation not just to avoid this behaviour, but to call it out and mentor younger colleagues on the value of integrity.”
She advocates for anonymous reporting mechanisms within the legal profession as well.
“The Bar Association must support structures where misconduct—whether by lawyers or court staff—can be reported confidentially. No one should fear professional backlash for doing what’s right.”
Technology can limit human interference
Fagbohungbe was optimistic about the role of technology in safeguarding judicial processes.
He believes that automating court operations can significantly reduce the chances of unethical interference.
“Yes, I agree with the use of technology. It will almost eliminate human interference because everything will be done by technology.
“If you have e-filing, virtual hearings, and even AI-supported systems, it limits contact and opportunities for compromise.
“It brings a level of neutrality and transparency that we need right now in the justice system.”
Banire also strongly endorsed the use of technology such as e-filing systems and virtual courtrooms, describing them as crucial to restoring transparency and curbing unethical practices.
“Greater use of technology in court processes will substantially eliminate all this scourge we’re talking about.
“It cuts out the unnecessary middlemen and ensures that everything is tracked and transparent. That’s the future of any justice system that wants to be trusted.”
While the challenges are daunting, Agih remains hopeful that well-targeted reforms can make a difference.
“Justice Kekere-Ekun’s remarks have reopened a conversation that the legal community can no longer ignore. We need to go beyond surface solutions. Technology, for instance, is a powerful tool, if properly implemented,” he said.
“Court processes like e-filing and digital case tracking can reduce the number of human touchpoints, which in turn limits opportunities for bribery.
“But we also need robust oversight, regular audits, independent monitoring, and strong whistleblower protections for those who come forward to report wrongdoing.”
Prof. Dada sees technology as an underused weapon against corruption in the judiciary.
She said: “E-filing, digital case management, AI-supported scheduling, these are not just conveniences; they are anti-corruption tools. T
“he more we automate and digitise, the fewer opportunities there are for files to go missing or for backdoor dealings to occur.
“If a case can be tracked online, if hearings are streamed virtually, it becomes much harder to manipulate outcomes in the shadows.”
While Ibeji sees the potential in adopting technology, she is wary of manipulations.
“If technology were not manipulated, it would be the best solution, but look at what happened during the 2023 elections.
“Even with something like BVAS, there were allegations of compromise. If we are going to use tech in the judiciary, we must ensure it’s immune from interference.”
She added: “There must be electronic monitoring of both the bench and judicial staff. If just one or two people are dismissed openly, others will sit up.”
Safeguarding whistleblowing
“I support the idea of confidential whistleblowing mechanisms within the judiciary.
These kinds of systems are necessary because a lot of court staff and even legal professionals may be afraid of retaliation or backlash if they report wrongdoing openly.
If whistleblowers can be protected and anonymous tips can be verified through proper procedures, we will see more people coming forward to expose corruption,” Banire said while expressing his full support on the idea of whistleblowing.
While many have called for the establishment of protected whistleblower mechanisms in the judiciary, Fagbohungbe urged caution, warning about the dangers of false allegations and misuse of such systems.
“Well, one must be very careful about fake news, because some people may say something that is untrue.
“If you make an allegation, the person must be confronted with it. You can’t just act on it blindly. If you allow anonymous whistleblowing without checks, it may be used to implicate innocent people unfairly.
“So yes, whistleblowing can be useful, but it must be carefully managed and not used as a tool to spread unverified accusations.”
While Ibeji supported the idea of confidential reporting systems for unethical behaviour, she said, she also experienced firsthand the dangers of speaking out.
“Whistleblowing is a good concept in theory, but how are you sure the people at the top are not part of the scam?”
She recounts a personal experience: “I once wrote a petition against some corrupt judicial workers. Before I knew it, word had spread all over the courthouse: ‘This lawyer is a petition writer.’
“It became a label that followed me around, and it made legal practice very difficult. Instead of protection, I got blacklisted.”
A strong advocate for whistleblower protection, Prof. Dada believes the system must encourage internal accountability.
“We need structured, confidential, and multiple-channel whistleblowing mechanisms, hotlines, secure online portals, and even physical suggestion boxes in courts.
“It is not enough to receive reports; each must be investigated promptly by an independent ethics unit, and whistleblowers must be kept informed about what’s being done.
“When people feel that their voice can trigger change and that they won’t suffer for speaking up, you begin to build a culture of courage and integrity.”
‘Journalists, NBA must join the fight’
According to Prof Dada, judicial reform is not the sole burden of insiders.
She said: “Litigants must stop offering bribes or seeking shortcuts.
“Lawyers must lead and journalists must shine a light on systemic patterns, not just isolated scandals. Civil societies must keep pushing for reforms, laws, and accountability.”
She also emphasised the importance of educating court users.
“People need to know their rights and the proper processes. When they are informed, they’re less likely to be manipulated and more likely to report wrongdoing.”
Prof. Dada called for a national recommitment to the ideals of justice.
“Preserving the integrity of our judiciary is not just the duty of judges or lawyers; it is a societal obligation.
“We must all play our part, not just in criticising when things go wrong, but in actively shaping a system that works. Only then can we rebuild trust in our courts and in the rule of law itself.”
In Ibeji’s view, reforming the judiciary cannot be left to judges and lawyers alone. She believes civil society, especially journalists, must play a more active role.
“The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) needs to do more; they should set up a monitoring committee to look into this.
“Although not just the NBA, journalists should have their secret monitors, maybe even undercover operatives, to track corrupt judges and their staff who are conniving for bribery purposes.
“Setting up undercover persons to monitor them will not be a bad idea at all,” she added.
The message from these legal experts is clear: Nigeria’s judiciary stands at a crossroads. The unethical behaviour of court staff, if left unchecked, will continue to undermine the very foundation of justice.
Reform is not just necessary, it is urgent.
From tech-based solutions and leadership accountability to whistleblower protection and systemic restructuring, the time to act is now.
The temple of justice must be cleaned, and the broom must sweep from the inside out.
