From the Bench to the People: Is Nigeria Ready for a Jury System?
Nigeria’s legal system has long relied on bench trials, where judges alone decide the fate of the accused. But what if the people had a say? A jury system, where ordinary citizens determine verdicts, is often seen as a symbol of democratic justice— a system that reflects the voices of the people rather than the judgment of a select few. While this might sound like a step toward fairness, the realities of bias and legal infrastructure raise the question: Would jury trials in Nigeria bring more justice, or just more complications? As the idea lingers, it’s worth exploring whether handing over courtroom decisions to the people is a bold reform or a cause for chaos.
This article explores the growing influence of public opinion on Nigeria’s legal system and posits arguments for and against the introduction of a jury system into the average Nigerian courtroom.
Firstly, what exactly is an ‘average Nigerian courtroom’? In Nigeria, we make use of a bench trial system. This means that a case is heard and decided upon by judges, where the number of judges depends on the court in question. In a Court of Appeal, a minimum of three (3) judges must sit on a case, however where the case is brought before the Supreme Court, the highest court in Nigeria, it becomes a minimum of five (5) judges and at least seven (7) where it is a constitutional matter. Accordingly, in the National Industrial Court of Nigeria and a few others a single judge system is put in place, here one judge handles all the cases.
In comparison, some other legal systems around the world rest the fate of an accused person not solely in the hands of a judge but in the decision of a group of ordinary citizens known as a jury. This system, known as trial by jury which allows selected members of the public to weigh the evidence and determine guilt or innocence, ensuring that justice reflects the views and values of the society. Although the concept of a trial by jury dates back centuries, with ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Saxons and early Germanic tribes using early forms of the legal practice. We will be analyzing the American jury system as a closer case study for better understanding.
In America, when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, the right to trial by jury for both criminal and civil cases was included in the Sixth and Seventh Amendment of the U.S Constitution. When James Madison collaborated with other founding fathers to add a Bill of Rights to address anti-federalist concerns, themes such as protection of core freedoms and limitation of federal power were at the heart of these amendments.
Furthermore, there are two main types of juries: grand juries, which determine whether enough evidence exists to charge someone with a crime, and trial juries (petit juries), which decide the outcome of criminal and civil trials. A juror may be any age over 18 and is randomly selected from public records. They go through a screening process referred to as ‘voir dire’ to ensure fairness and when selected for a trial, they listen to arguments, review evidence, and then deliberate privately before delivering a verdict. Criminal trials typically require a unanimous decision, while civil cases may allow for majority verdicts, depending on state laws.
The jury system inspires fairness, democracy, and public participation in the justice system. It reinforces the idea that legal decisions should reflect the values and judgment of ordinary citizens rather than being left solely to government officials or judges. However, a bench trial system inspires efficiency, legal expertise, and procedural fairness in the justice system. Since cases are decided solely by a judge or judges rather than a jury, it ensures that verdicts are based on a deep understanding of the law rather than emotions or public sentiment.
Moving on from conceptual clarifications and into the heart of the debate. Which is more suitable for Nigeria?
Let’s start with arguments for the jury system.
As stated earlier, the jury system inspires virtues you would need in any prosperous judicial system; fairness, democracy, public participation and trust in the justice system. By randomly drawing potential jurors from voter registrations, driver’s license records, and other public databases, the system aims to include people from different backgrounds and walks of life. This diversity helps prevent biases that might arise if legal decisions were left solely to judges, who may come from a more uniform legal background.
A jury system could also provide a sense of public participation and accountability to Nigeria’s legal process, making justice feel more inclusive and representative. This is one of my favorite benefits. A jury system creates a high level of trust between the people and its government which is what Nigeria desperately lacks. It allows ordinary citizens to actively participate in the justice process, making them feel more invested in the rule of law rather than seeing it as a tool of the elite. In a country where government institutions are often met with skepticism and allegations of corruption, involving the people in legal decisions could help bridge the gap between the judiciary and the public. If citizens believe they have a role in delivering justice, they may be more likely to respect court rulings, reducing the widespread distrust that fuels lawlessness and retaliations such as mob justice. Unlike a system where verdicts are handed down solely by judges — who may be distant from the realities of everyday Nigerians — a jury allows ordinary citizens to have a direct role in the administration of justice.
Nonetheless, where public opinion is increasingly shaping Nigeria’s legal system, influencing judicial decisions, law enforcement, and legislative reforms, under a jury system, high-profile cases may face intense scrutiny from social media and public discourse, almost pressuring courts to act in ways that align with popular sentiment rather than strict legal principles. On the other hand, the rise of online activism and viral campaigns has led to faster policy responses and a greater awareness of social issues as seen in protests against police brutality and gender-based violence. The question still remains, is this a suitable country for a jury system to thrive?
This answer is complicated, as every lawyer’s answer is, hence we shall tackle the challenges of a jury system in Nigeria.
Juries are incredibly subject to easy manipulation. For example, in a criminal trial there are usually 6–12 jurors and they are randomly chosen from public records like voter registration lists, driver’s license databases, or tax records. However, certain individuals may be excluded, such as: those with serious criminal records (depending on state laws), individuals who demonstrate bias during jury selection (voir dire) and/or people with conflicts of interest related to the case.
Furthermore, there is no obvious merit based system in the selection of jurors. There’s nothing which suggests they must be kind to their family and peers or even upstanding citizens, although their records, such as good tax records and also combined with success in the voir dire helps filter out extreme biases, it does not guarantee the presence some kind of ability to decipher between moral right and wrong and therefore their inherent values remain mostly a mystery to the selection process. This, in my opinion, causes problems. The lack of a merit-based selection process in the jury system raises concerns about the competence and reliability of jurors. Additionally, because jurors are chosen randomly rather than based on legal knowledge and critical thinking skills, jurors are not adequately qualified to assess complex legal arguments or evidence. Therefore, verdicts may be influenced by bias, personal emotions, or misunderstanding of the law rather than objective reasoning.
Where selected jurors are often easily manipulated, making them vulnerable to emotional appeals, persuasive lawyers, and even media influence, the court may become a stage for theatrics rather than a forum for impartial justice. When inside the courtroom, they are being swayed by tactics like dramatic storytelling and misleading rhetoric and outside the courtroom there is social pressure and bias media coverage, the probability of an unfair verdict being passed is almost too high for comfort.
Another obvious challenge is the fact that many Nigerians hold deep-seated ethnic, religious, and political biases, which often shape their views on legal matters rather than objective reasoning. Nigeria’s cultural diversity alongside this presents a major challenge to implementing a jury system. With over 250 ethnic groups, biases rooted in communal loyalty and tribalism could easily influence jury decisions. In a country where allegiances often run deeper than national identity, jurors may struggle to separate personal beliefs from legal facts, leading to ethnocentric rulings and unfair verdicts. Additionally, in some cultures, respect for authority and hierarchy may make jurors hesitant to challenge dominant opinions, undermining the very purpose of a fair and balanced jury deliberation. Without strong safeguards, a jury system in Nigeria risks becoming a reflection of cultural divisions rather than an instrument of justice.
The lack of adequate infrastructure and resources to support a jury system also stands in our way. A jury-based system requires efficient record-keeping, secure jury deliberation spaces, comprehensive juror vetting, and a well-structured selection process— all of which Nigeria’s legal system struggles with due to poor funding and slow judicial processes. Also, ensuring that jurors attend trials without delays or external influence would require significant logistical planning and security measures, which may not be feasible given the already overburdened yet under-resourced court system. Without these critical structures in place, a jury system could further slow down already terribly slow trials, increase costs, and create more inefficiencies, making it impractical for Nigeria’s legal environment.
It could be argued that Nigeria has a single judge system in only a handful of courts. What is then the point of a jury system when the judiciary already includes multiple voices at the appellate level? Unlike a jury — made up of ordinary citizens with no legal training — Nigeria’s multi-judge panels consist of experienced professionals who are better equipped to interpret the law without being swayed by emotions or public pressure. If the goal of a jury system is to ensure fairer trials through diverse viewpoints, does Nigeria truly lack this, or would introducing juries only complicate an already fragile legal structure?
The answer is simple, while Nigeria’s higher courts have multiple judges on the bench, they still represent a small, elite group with similar legal training and professional backgrounds. A jury system, on the other hand, brings in everyday citizens from different social, economic, and cultural backgrounds, ensuring that justice is not just seen through the lens of legal experts but also through the realities of ordinary people. This, to me, is of great importance as it makes trials more representative, reduces bias, and of course increase public trust in the legal system. By moving away from rigid, recycled structures, Nigeria could embrace a legal system that is more democratic, transparent, and truly responsive to its people.
Additionally, just as the jury is susceptible to external influences, judges are not immune to the same. It is debatable as to which side suffers from this defect more. While the jury may face social pressures, the judges are also vulnerable to political pressure and financial incentives. With so much power concentrated in the hands of a single judge or a small panel, bribery and favoritism can easily undermine the fairness of verdicts. However, with an independent and efficient selection process, a jury system, by distributing decision-making among multiple individuals, the risk of judicial corruption is reduced and verdicts are less susceptible to manipulation by powerful interests.
Therefore here’s my last question; do you think more voices equal more justice? Or is a jury system in Nigeria just a long dream?
