Introduction
The global trend towards the digitalisation of public services has extended to the justice system, with many jurisdictions introducing online portals for filing claims and managing cases. The stated intention behind such reforms is typically to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and make justice more accessible and convenient for the public. The scenario presented, of a Nigerian court introducing a new digital filing system, exemplifies this trend. However, while such systems offer significant potential benefits, it is a mistake to assume that their introduction necessarily improves access to justice for all. This essay will critically examine this assumption. It will argue that while digital systems can enhance access for some, they risk creating significant new barriers for others, particularly the most vulnerable. This essay will contend that without careful planning and robust safeguards, the digitalisation of court services can worsen existing inequalities, creating a two-tier justice system. The distinction between the formal availability of a digital service and practical, effective access is central to this analysis.
The Meaning of Access to Justice in a Digital Context
Traditionally, the concept of ‘access to justice’ encompasses more than simply the ability to enter a courtroom. It refers to the capacity of individuals to seek and obtain a remedy through formal or informal justice systems for grievances, in conformity with human rights standards (United Nations, 2018). It involves the right to a fair hearing, effective participation in proceedings, and the availability of affordable and timely legal processes. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the justice system is open and available to everyone, regardless of their social or economic status.
The shift to a digital environment requires this definition to be updated. In the context of an online court, access to justice is no longer just about physical or financial barriers to a courthouse; it is also about technological ones. Access now depends on an individual’s ability to use the necessary digital tools. This includes having access to a suitable device such as a computer or smartphone, a reliable and affordable internet connection, and the digital literacy required to navigate an online portal (Susskind, 2019). As such, the convenience and speed offered to digitally-proficient users must be weighed against the new obstacles created for those who lack these resources. The Nigerian court’s system, which promises faster and more convenient justice, only fulfils this promise for a specific segment of the population. For others, the introduction of the portal represents not an improvement, but a new and potentially insurmountable barrier to having their case heard, thereby undermining the core principle of equal access.
Digital Exclusion and its Impact on Access to Justice
The primary challenge to the success of digital justice initiatives is the phenomenon of ‘digital exclusion’ or the ‘digital divide’. This refers to the gap between individuals and communities who have access to information and communication technologies (ICT) and those who do not. This exclusion is not random; it often tracks and amplifies existing social and economic inequalities (van Dijk, 2020). The scenario described highlights several key dimensions of digital exclusion that can directly impede access to justice.
Firstly, economic barriers are a significant factor. In a country like Nigeria, where a substantial portion of the population lives in poverty, the cost of purchasing a smartphone or laptop, let alone paying for consistent internet data, can be prohibitive for many (World Bank, 2022). For these individuals, a mandatory or heavily incentivised online filing system effectively places justice behind a paywall that they cannot afford. This directly contradicts the principle that access to the courts should not be dependent on a person's wealth.
Secondly, there are barriers related to skills and literacy. The prompt notes that elderly and less digitally literate users struggle with the online portal. Digital literacy is not an innate skill; it is acquired through education and experience, which are not universally available. Expecting an elderly person with no prior computer experience, or an individual with low literacy levels, to successfully navigate a complex legal portal without assistance is unrealistic and unfair. This effectively disenfranchises entire segments of the population from the justice system (Byrom, 2020).
Finally, geographical disparities in infrastructure create further barriers. Internet connectivity is often far more reliable and affordable in urban centres than in rural or remote areas. Litigants living outside major cities may find themselves unable to use the online system simply because the necessary infrastructure does not exist where they live. The creation of a digital system without accounting for this reality means that justice becomes geographically privileged. The consequence in the Nigerian context is clear: a system intended to be universal in its accessibility becomes exclusive in practice, creating a clear division between the digitally included and the digitally excluded.
Formal Availability versus Practical and Effective Access
The introduction of the online portal creates a situation where access to justice is formally available to all. In theory, anyone can use the online system, and for those who cannot, a physical registry remains open. However, there is a crucial difference between this formal, theoretical availability and genuine, practical access. A legal system that is truly committed to justice must be concerned with the latter (Hadfield, 2017).
By making the physical filing process "considerably longer," the court system is not providing a true alternative but rather a demonstrably inferior one. This creates a two-tier system of justice: a fast-track, first-class service for the digitally privileged and a slow, second-class service for everyone else. Such a system is inherently discriminatory. It penalises individuals based on their age, income, education, or location. Justice delayed can often be justice denied, and by intentionally slowing down the non-digital path, the court is undermining the legal rights of those who are forced to use it. The problem is not the existence of a digital option, but the failure to maintain a non-digital equivalent that offers the same quality of access. Effective access means that all individuals must have a viable path to resolve their legal disputes in a timely and fair manner, regardless of the method of filing. The formal existence of a physical registry is insufficient if it functions as a deterrent rather than a genuine alternative.
Safeguards to Ensure Fair Digitalisation
To ensure that the move towards digitalisation enhances rather than hinders access to justice, court systems must adopt a series of robust safeguards. The goal should be to harness the efficiencies of technology without abandoning those who cannot use it.
First and foremost, courts must maintain a properly funded and efficient non-digital alternative. The paper-based, in-person system cannot be allowed to become a neglected, slow-moving backwater. It must be staffed and resourced to ensure that it operates with a level of efficiency comparable to the digital system. This is the most critical safeguard to prevent the creation of a two-tier justice system (Civil Justice Council, 2017).
Secondly, comprehensive support must be provided for those who are willing to use the digital system but lack the skills or resources to do so independently. This could take several forms. Courts could establish ‘digital assistance centres’ within courthouses, staffed by trained personnel who can guide users through the online process. Telephone helplines can also provide a vital service for those with specific questions or problems. Furthermore, courts could partner with community organisations, such as public libraries or citizen advice centres, to provide local points of assisted digital access (Byrom, 2020).
Finally, the design of the digital system itself is crucial. The online portal must be developed with a focus on user-friendliness and accessibility. This means using plain language, intuitive navigation, and ensuring compatibility with assistive technologies for users with disabilities. The system should be co-designed and tested with a diverse range of users, including elderly people, those with low literacy, and individuals with disabilities, to ensure it is genuinely usable by the people it is intended to serve. These safeguards are not optional extras; they are essential components of any digital justice project that takes the principle of equal access to justice seriously.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the introduction of a digital court system does not necessarily improve access to justice. While the Nigerian court’s online portal may offer increased speed and convenience for a portion of the population, it simultaneously creates significant and unfair barriers for many others. The initiative, as described, fails to adequately address the realities of the digital divide, including economic, educational, and geographical inequalities. By making the non-digital alternative significantly slower, the system risks establishing a discriminatory two-tier justice system where the quality of justice one receives depends on their digital capability. The formal availability of an online service is not a substitute for practical and effective access for all citizens. For digitalisation to represent genuine progress, it must be accompanied by a firm commitment to inclusivity. This requires maintaining effective non-digital channels and providing robust support systems to ensure that in the pursuit of efficiency, the fundamental principle of equal access to justice for all is not left behind.
References
Byrom, N. (2020) The Digital Divide: What is it, and why does it matter for the justice system? The Nuffield Foundation.
Civil Justice Council (2017) Litigants in Person: Online Report. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.
Hadfield, G. K. (2017) 'The Cost of Law: Promoting Access to Justice through the (Un)corporate Practice of Law', International Review of Law and Economics, 38, pp. 43-63.
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press.
United Nations (2018) Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313, Annex.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020) The Digital Divide. Polity Press.
World Bank (2022) A Better Future for All Nigerians: Nigeria Poverty Assessment 2022. World Bank Group.
