Dispute Resolution in Northern Nigeria: Innovation, Inclusion and Institutions
Northern Nigeria lives with two truths at the same time.
On one hand, it is a zone of markets, farms, and logistics routes that feed the rest of the country. On the other, it has carried years of insecurity, climate shocks, and infrastructure gaps that affect daily life and business decisions.
When a serious dispute arises in this context, the way it is handled can mean the difference between recovery and quiet collapse. A broken supply contract, unpaid work on a public project, or damage from a farmer–herder clash does not sit in a vacuum. It lands on top of existing pressure, and often in systems that are already strained.
On 16 December, NexusADR LLP will host its inaugural public lecture on “Dispute Resolution in Northern Nigeria: Innovation, Inclusion and Institutions.” In this note, we set out why this theme matters and what we hope to explore with judges, lawyers, business leaders, and other stakeholders in the room.
NexusADR LLP is a focused arbitration and dispute resolution firm based in Abuja, led by three partners with strong links to Northern and North Central Nigeria. Our work sits where contracts, public policy, and commercial disputes meet. We do not claim to speak for the region, but we are clear that Northern disputes and Northern voices must be part of the wider conversation on dispute systems in Nigeria.
Where Disputes Are Actually Resolved Today
If you follow a typical dispute in Northern Nigeria from start to finish, you rarely see one clean process.
A disagreement may start with a family meeting, move to a religious leader or traditional ruler, then to the police or a ministry, and only sometimes reach a courtroom or a formal arbitration. Each step has its own informal rules and power dynamics, and many matters simply fade out once the weaker party gives up.
Formal structures do exist. Courts in states across the North and North Central zone handle a wide range of criminal and civil work. Court-connected and private ADR centres, such as the National Industrial Court of Nigeria ADR Centre in Abuja, the Nigerian Chamber of Commerce Dispute Resolution Centre, and private facilities like ICAMA and JICAM in Abuja, provide structured mediation and arbitration services.
At the same time, public reports and research keep pointing to heavy congestion and delay in the justice system. Studies note high case volumes, poor case flow management, and infrastructure deficits, all contributing to long timelines. In October 2025, former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo remarked that a commercial dispute in Nigeria can take up to 13 years from filing to final Supreme Court judgment, which is clearly bad for business and investment confidence.
The result is a patchwork: powerful parties can afford to litigate or arbitrate in full, while many smaller actors in the North, especially MSMEs and local contractors, hesitate to use formal routes at all. They see processes as slow, expensive, or distant, and instead absorb losses, quietly step away from contracts, or settle for one-sided “resolutions.”
Any honest effort to improve dispute resolution in Northern Nigeria has to start from this mixed reality of informal pathways, strained courts, and underused ADR options, not from neat models on paper.
What Innovation Should Mean Here
“Innovation” in law is often presented as technology. Online hearings, case management apps, or digital filing can help, especially where infrastructure allows it. But in Northern Nigeria, innovation has to start with simple, well-designed processes that match local conditions.
For many commercial disputes in the region, especially those below a certain value, parties need clear, short options. For example:
a documents-only process handled by a single neutral,
transparent and reasonable fees,
a fixed time frame, say 45 to 60 days from start to decision,
clear rules on how to appoint the neutral.
This kind of design can make arbitration or structured mediation feel usable for traders in Makurdi, contractors in Jos, or suppliers in Kano, rather than something reserved for large corporates.
Inside government, ministries and agencies working on roads, power, or procurement could adopt internal escalation ladders and mediation windows before disputes spill into open conflict. The National Industrial Court’s ADR Centre Rules already show that court-connected ADR can reduce delay in labour and employment matters by using mediation and conciliation in a structured way.
At our lecture, we want to focus on this kind of grounded innovation: not technology for its own sake, but procedures, clauses, and forums that reduce cost and time for parties in the North, and that reflect the reality of insecurity, poor infrastructure, and uneven access to legal support.
Who Gets Seen and Heard When Disputes Arise
“Inclusion” can feel abstract until we ask concrete questions.
Whose experiences shape the rules and model clauses that businesses in the North are told to use?
Which lawyers and neutrals from Northern states routinely get selected for major arbitrations or high-value mediations?
Which parties actually understand the dispute clauses that bind them when conflict arises?
At a regional level, many national conversations on arbitration and justice reform still tilt towards Lagos and a few other hubs. When practitioners, judges, and institutions from Northern states are missing at the design table, rules can ignore realities such as security restrictions on movement, the cost of travel to hearing venues, and the particular mix of customary, religious, and statutory law that parties live with daily.
On the professional side, young lawyers from the North, especially women and those outside big city networks, often do the hard work in disputes research and drafting but have limited access to visible roles or appointments in arbitration and ADR. At the same time, SMEs, local contractors, and communities rarely get a say when dispute clauses are inserted into contracts. Clauses are often copied from foreign precedents or negotiated by stronger parties, with little explanation of cost and practical steps.
Research on Northern SMEs shows how fragile their position already is. Studies in North Eastern states and Gombe, for example, report that insecurity has reduced market share, disrupted supply chains, caused looting and destruction of property, and pushed some businesses to close or relocate. In that context, a dispute process that is slow or one-sided does more than annoy people, it directly affects survival.
For us, inclusion in dispute resolution in Northern Nigeria should at least mean three things:
Regional inclusion in rule-making and policy discussions.
Professional inclusion of a wider pool of practitioners in real dispute roles, not just support work.
Contractual inclusion, where MSMEs and weaker parties understand and can live with the dispute clauses that bind them.
Institutions That Can Carry Disputes Well
Institutions are more than court buildings or arbitration centres. They also include bar branches, chambers of commerce, trade groups, law faculties, religious councils, and even security-related forums that already mediate conflicts between farmers, herders, and other groups.
Strong institutions do three quiet but important things:
They give predictable rules for handling conflict.
They set standards and expectations for those who run processes.
They give both powerful and weaker parties some confidence that outcomes will not be determined only by force or connections.
In and around Northern Nigeria, there are already important pieces in place:
The National Industrial Court ADR Centre in Abuja, which handles labour and workplace disputes through conciliation and mediation.
Private arbitration and mediation centres such as ICAMA and JICAM in Abuja, which serve as venues and administer arbitrations.
The Nigerian Chamber of Commerce Dispute Resolution Centre and state-level chamber initiatives, including efforts by chambers in Kano and other locations, that seek to keep member disputes away from overburdened courts.
NBA branches, law faculties, and professional institutes that are starting to mainstream ADR in training for judges and lawyers.
The question for the region is how to link these structures, support them, and use them in ways that reach beyond a narrow circle of large corporations and elite practitioners.
At NexusADR LLP, we see ourselves as one small piece of this wider web. Our interest is in working with existing institutions rather than trying to replace them. That means designing trainings that run through bodies like NBA ICLE, offering neutral services when called upon, and sharing practical resources that courts, chambers, and firms can adapt for their own use.
What We Hope to Do on 16 December
The 16 December public lecture is not an end in itself. It is a starting point for a more grounded conversation on disputes in Northern Nigeria.
Our plan is simple:
A main lecture on “Dispute Resolution in Northern Nigeria: Innovation, Inclusion and Institutions,” delivered by a speaker with deep experience in this area.
A short response panel that brings in voices from the bench, the private bar, in house counsel, and the business or development space.
Time for questions, comments, and concrete suggestions from participants.
We are less interested in a long list of speeches and more interested in what comes next. If we can leave the room with:
two or three practical ideas that institutions in the region are willing to develop further,
new links between key actors in courts, ADR centres, the bar, and business groups,
and a clearer sense of where a firm like NexusADR can support,
then the lecture will have done its job.
Conclusion
Disputes will never disappear from Northern Nigeria. Contracts will still break, land will still be contested, climate shocks will still disrupt lives and supply chains.
The real question is whether the systems that handle these disputes are slow, distant, and uneven, or more responsive, fair, and suited to the region’s realities.
As NexusADR LLP, we believe that innovation, inclusion, and strong institutions are not slogans but working directions. We invite judges, lawyers, public officials, business owners, and community actors who share this concern to join us on 16 December, and to stay with the work that will follow after the event.
