Reimagining dispute resolution systems for Nigeria’s innovation, digital economy

By Omoruyi ‘Uyilaw’ Edoigiawerie, Esq

Last week, at a high-level policy roundtable convened by Paradigm Initiative and the University of Lagos, I joined a gathering of regulators, legal experts, and digital economy stakeholders to assess the trajectory of Nigeria’s technology governance.

As conversations shifted toward implementation gaps in our regulatory frameworks, it became evident that one foundational issue continues to receive insufficient national attention: the inadequacy of Nigeria’s dispute resolution infrastructure in serving the rapidly evolving innovation economy.

It is a concern that has lingered beneath the surface for far too long, largely ignored by policymakers who are understandably focused on headline reforms such as licensing, taxation, and compliance enforcement. But beneath all of that, at the very core of any functioning digital economy, is the confidence that disputes can be resolved quickly, fairly, and with contextual understanding.

Nigeria’s current legal infrastructure, robust in letter but sluggish in motion, was never designed to accommodate the tempo, fluidity, and complexity of the technology sector. The traditional justice system remains rooted in an analogue era, where disputes follow linear paths, timelines stretch across years, and judges are generalists tasked with mastering every subject from tenancy disagreements to maritime claims.

In that system, disputes over data portability, algorithmic fairness, software ownership, or fintech compliance are not just delayed; they are diluted. As a start-up lawyer who advises founders daily, I have seen firsthand the damage this disconnect causes.

Contracts are abandoned not because the law fails but because the process makes enforcement impractical. Founders who should be seeking redress choose instead to walk away, recalibrate, or relocate.

Foreign investors increasingly seek assurances outside the court system. For a country aspiring to lead Africa’s digital transformation, this is not just unsustainable, it is strategically dangerous.

The nature of innovation-driven disputes requires not just speed, but also technical fluency and commercial empathy. A smart contract disagreement, for example, is not just about breach and remedy; it is about whether the court understands what blockchain means, how code can carry legal intent, and why decentralisation changes the assumptions behind liability.

A dispute involving a SaaS platform’s outage is not merely about service delivery failure; it implicates uptime guarantees, infrastructure dependencies, and global data transfer protocols. Even something as seemingly straightforward as a digital takedown or content moderation case requires the adjudicator to understand platform algorithms, bias in automated systems, and the delicate balance between user protection and free speech rights. Unfortunately, our existing courtrooms are not designed for this level of nuance.

The absence of sector-specific training, the lack of access to independent technical advisors, and the procedural bottlenecks of conventional litigation all compound to make the current system not just unhelpful, but often hostile to tech entrepreneurs.

What Nigeria needs is not another layer of bureaucracy or a cosmetic reform. We need a fundamental rethink of how we resolve disputes related to innovation. At the heart of this shift must be agility, systems that are not only fast and fair but also intellectually compatible with the realities of modern digital business.

This could take the form of dedicated technology courts or innovation tribunals, modelled after the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, where judges with specialised training preside over commercial, IP, fintech, and digital infrastructure cases.

It could also include the appointment of technical assessors, independent domain experts who support judges by translating complex digital realities into legally intelligible terms. This is not a radical idea.

In tax disputes, our courts already rely on financial experts. In forensic matters, scientific witnesses are admissible. Extending this to the digital economy is a matter of institutional will, not legal novelty.

International best practices offer compelling examples. In the United Kingdom, judges are trained on blockchain, AI, and emerging tech law. The courts publish public guidance on handling crypto-assets and have issued precedent-setting rulings on novel issues, such as digital wallets and smart contracts.

In the European Union, the Digital Services Act requires platforms to offer out-of-court resolution mechanisms through certified Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) bodies, providing users with a structured channel to challenge platform decisions, such as content removal or account bans.

The EU’s ODR platform has resolved thousands of consumer disputes without a single courtroom appearance. In the United States, where arbitration remains the preferred mode of resolution in the tech industry, institutions like JAMS (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) and the AAA (American Arbitration Association) maintain rosters of arbitrators who are cross-competent in law and technology.

Disputes are not only resolved faster, but with richer context and commercial awareness. These systems did not emerge overnight. They were born out of deliberate policy decisions to align legal infrastructure with the contours of innovation.

Nigeria can adopt a similar path, but we must do so intentionally. First, we need to institutionalise specialised training for judges, arbitrators, and regulators. The National Judicial Institute should collaborate with NITDA, the Nigerian Bar Association, and digital rights organisations to create certified modules on emerging technologies. Legal practitioners cannot adjudicate what they do not understand.

Secondly, we must update our court rules to reflect the nature of digital economy disputes, including tight timelines, the admissibility of expert digital evidence, and allowances for virtual proceedings, which must become standard practice. Third, we need to invest in pilot projects. Lagos and Abuja, being hubs of tech activity, are ideal test beds for innovation courts or online dispute resolution platforms. These pilots should be developed in consultation with industry stakeholders and evaluated based on speed, user satisfaction, and the enforceability of outcomes.

We also need to update our regulatory instruments to reflect dispute resolution pathways. It is no longer enough for regulations to state what platforms or companies must do; they must also clearly state what happens when things go wrong. Every fintech, data protection, or AI regulation should have a corresponding dispute resolution clause, whether through administrative hearings, innovation tribunals, or alternative dispute resolution channels.

And finally, we must be bold in signalling that legal certainty is a growth enabler. Entrepreneurs should never feel that seeking justice is bad for business. The ability to resolve disputes fairly and efficiently is not a luxury; it is a precondition for attracting capital, fostering innovation, and retaining talent. Legal clarity is infrastructure.

What we are advocating is not just for the benefit of the start-up class; it is a national competitiveness imperative. As other African countries, such as Rwanda and Kenya, streamline their commercial justice systems and position themselves as digital hubs, Nigeria risks losing its edge if it fails to evolve. If we cannot offer legal certainty, innovation will go where it is protected. If our courts remain stuck in 20th-century logic, the companies of the 21st century will opt out.

The world is not waiting for Nigeria to catch up. We must build mechanisms that inspire confidence, protect rights, and accelerate resolution. The future of justice will not be measured only by digitisation or e-filing systems. It will be measured by whether our legal system understands and adapts to the sectors that are shaping our economic destiny.

Let us be clear: the time for this transformation is now. The digital economy is not tomorrow’s economy; it is today’s. If we want to govern it well, we must design a justice system that understands its rhythms, respects its speed, and protects its participants. That is what agile justice means. That is what Nigeria must pursue, deliberately, boldly, and without delay.

Justice is the backbone of any thriving society, and in a digital age, it must be as dynamic as the world it seeks to regulate. Agile justice is not a luxury; it is a necessity. If Nigeria is to harness the full potential of its digital economy, our legal institutions must evolve faster, smarter, and with intentional clarity.

*Omoruyi “Uyilaw” Edoigiawerie is a leading start-up lawyer and policy advisor working at the intersection of law, technology, and equity in emerging markets. He is the Founder and Chief Servant at EandC Legal, a full-service law firm offering bespoke legal services with a focus on start-ups, established businesses, and upscale private clients in Nigeria. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. To get in touch, please email: hello@uyilaw.com.