Search

The Nigerian judicial system is currently in a state of distress. Not only has the judiciary been trailed by allegations of corruption, incompetence and god-fatherism amongst others, the wheels of justice in Nigeria are slowly grinding to a near halt. This is because of the large and growing case list of courts as well as the recurrent industrial strike actions embarked upon by court staff. As a solution to this crisis, stakeholders have put forward a number of suggestions, one of which is the use of alternative dispute resolution methods like domestic arbitration, as a solution to the problems of the judiciary and as a viable alternative to the court system. As we will however come to see in this thesis, Nigeria’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1988 (“Arbitration Act”), which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985, is not only outdated, it is also for many reasons not suitable and relevant to a developing country as Nigeria. For example, the existing Arbitration Act fails to take the legal and social idiosyncrasies of the Nigerian nation into consideration. Furthermore, the Act fails to incorporate the pre-existing and judicially recognized customary arbitration practice into the Act. In addition, the Nigerian Arbitration framework contains a number of anti-arbitration provisions, which have clearly inhibited the growth of domestic arbitration in Nigeria. Moreover, between 1988 and now, a number of beneficial changes have occurred within the sphere of arbitration and from which the Nigerian arbitration framework can draw lessons. All these among others, make the Nigerian Arbitration Act an unsuitable alternative to the court system in Nigeria. This thesis therefore recommends a bespoke domestic arbitration framework, which takes account of the legal and social idiosyncrasies of the Nigerian nation as well as recent but relevant domestic arbitration practices in similar jurisdictions as Nigeria. Among other recommendations, the proposed framework borrows a leaf from the deeply rooted and judicially recognised customary arbitration practice in Nigeria. Furthermore, in a bid to identify and incorporate relevant provisions and practices that have emerged within the sphere of domestic arbitration between 1988 and now, we undertake a comparative analysis of the Ghanaian Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010, the UNCITRAL Model Law 2006, the English Arbitration Act 1996 as well as the Uniform Act on Arbitration 1999 of OHADA. It is believed that this modern but tailored framework will encourage the use of domestic arbitration in Nigeria and by extension ameliorate the problems in the judicial system.