A new report by the Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Centre) reveals that many Nigerians perceive their country's judicial system as corrupt, difficult to access, and susceptible to political influence. Released on Tuesday in Lagos, the report titled "Voices for Justice: A Civic Lens on Nigeria's Judicial System – Documenting Public Experiences, Opinions, and Reform Demands" represents the fifth edition of HEDA's Leadership Approval Rating series. Executive Secretary Sulaimon Arigbabu presented the findings, which are based on a nationwide survey of 1,357 respondents across all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory. The results highlight significant public dissatisfaction with the justice system. "Young people are clearly engaged, with 57 percent of respondents aged between 18 and 35," Arigbabu noted. "Yet, 50 percent of participants said they had never interacted with the courts. Only 12.6 percent rated the judiciary as highly accessible, while 36.5 percent described accessibility as very low." When citizens did engage with courts, it was primarily for administrative purposes like obtaining affidavits or resolving land disputes rather than seeking more substantive justice. The survey exposed concerning trends regarding judicial integrity. Nearly half (49 percent) of court users admitted to paying or "sorting" court officials, while 65.4 percent characterized judicial corruption as high or extremely high. Only 42.3 percent of respondents believed court decisions were based on merit, with many citing persistent delays and perceived bias as major issues. Trust in legal professionals was also low, with 64 percent of respondents saying lawyers contribute to judicial corruption and only 29 percent viewing judges as impartial. Additionally, 62 percent felt judges were violating judicial ethics by failing to "remain heard and not seen." High-profile and political cases were identified as particular areas of concern, with 63.4 percent of respondents believing these cases expose judges to corruption. Nearly half (48.9 percent) said such cases received priority treatment at the expense of ordinary matters, contributing to extended delays in accessing justice. While 59 percent of respondents acknowledged that financial autonomy had moderately improved judicial independence, only 17 percent expressed confidence in the National Judicial Council's ability to discipline judges who violate standards. Despite improvements in the judiciary's financial autonomy, respondents indicated this has not translated to greater transparency or accountability. The report also found that more than 70 percent of respondents did not know how to report judicial misconduct.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​