1. What is the current legal landscape for arbitration in Nigeria?

Arbitration practice in Nigeria has evolved significantly with the introduction of the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023 (the “AMA”), which replaced the erstwhile Federal legislation on arbitration, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1988 (the “ACA”). The AMA, which incorporated to a large extent the revised UNCITRAL Model Law, 2006, introduced several innovative provisions to cater for the intricacies of international arbitration in modern times. Some of the innovative provisions in the AMA include provisions on emergency arbitrators, third-party funding, consolidation of arbitration proceedings, mandatory stay of court proceedings where there is a valid arbitration agreement, and an award review tribunal.

The Nigerian courts generally support arbitration and give effect to party autonomy. The Nigerian Courts will generally enforce arbitration agreements and awards. Courts also now accept that simply alleging fraud is not enough to avoid arbitration, unless the fraud goes to the validity of the contract and/or the arbitration agreement. See Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Ltd. et al. (2018) LPELR-45546(CA). This approach is consistent with global arbitration practice.

Further, Nigeria recently developed the National Policy on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2024 (the “ADR Policy”). The ADR Policy seeks to, among others, foster efficient, transparent, and globally aligned mechanisms for resolving cross-border commercial disputes. The ADR Policy provides a structured framework for the promotion of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”), particularly in commercial contexts involving international parties, as part of Nigeria’s broader aspirations in regional and global trade. There are provisions in the ADR Policy that enjoins all ministries, departments, and agencies of the federal government to incorporate ADR clauses in contracts and select Nigeria as the arbitration venue and seats.

Nigeria is fast becoming a regional centre for arbitration in West Africa, with Lagos and Abuja serving as leading seats. Lagos, in particular, has developed into a key location for both domestic and international arbitration. Lagos hosts modern arbitration centres such as the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK), Nigerian Branch, the Lagos Court of Arbitration (LCA) and the Lagos Chamber of Commerce International Arbitration Centre (LACIAC) Arbitration Centre. Through these institutions, institutional and ad hoc arbitrations are conducted.

However, there are still challenges concerning enforcement of arbitral awards. Award creditors continue to experience delays in recognising and enforcing arbitral awards in Nigeria due to proceedings either opposing the enforcement proceedings or seeking to set aside awards. These proceedings may go up to the Supreme Court of Nigeria taking some years before being finally resolved. However, certain provisions were introduced by the AMA to mitigate these delays and reinforce quicker recognition and enforcement of awards.

For instance, the AMA provides more clearly defined and limited grounds for challenging an arbitral award and removed the previously controversial and overly broad grounds of “misconduct of the arbitrator” and “error on the face on award” that existed under the ACA. The grounds for setting aside an award under the AMA are the same as those for setting aside an award under Article 34(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law or for refusal of enforcement under Article V(2) of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award 1958 (the “New York Convention”).

The AMA also makes it necessary for a party to demonstrate that the ground (relied on by it) for setting aside an award “has caused or will cause substantial justice to the applicant.” By doing so, the AMA now takes a much more stringent stance against setting aside arbitral awards, restricting the court’s authority to get involved and improving the finality and preservation of awards.

Overall, the Nigerian arbitration landscape is commercially responsive and increasingly aligned with international practice, positioning Nigeria as a major arbitration hub in Africa.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in arbitration?

First, when negotiating commercial contracts, clients should insist on a clear dispute resolution mechanism and that resolution mechanism must be adhered to before an arbitration is commenced. Clients should determine, when negotiating contracts, if there should be some ADR processes such as negotiation and mediation before arbitration and if those processes are compulsory. The multi-tired dispute resolution clauses may be necessary where business relationships need to be preserved. However, where parties seek to include a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause, it is advised that they clearly indicate the timeframes of each step/process and outline the next steps in case of delays/completion of a step/expiration of such timeframe.

The mode of resolution is often determined long before dispute arises. Many commercial disputes become unnecessarily complicated because parties failed to pay attention to the dispute resolution clause. Poor or defective arbitration clauses lead to delay, procedural objections, and uncertainty about how disputes should be resolved.

To avoid that, clients should ensure from the beginning that their arbitration clause clearly indicates (a) preliminary ADR processes (if any), (b) the seat and venue of arbitration, (c) the number of arbitrators, (d) the appointing authority (if necessary), (e) the arbitration rules to be used, (f) the unqualified agreement of the parties to resolve the dispute by arbitration, (g) where the parties seek to use arbitral institutions, a correct description of the arbitral institution, and (h) applicable law to arbitration. If these issues are not addressed at the contract stage, parties expose themselves to avoidable challenges that can defeat the purpose of choosing arbitration in the first place.

Second, evidence plays a critical role in arbitration, mostly determining the outcome of the dispute. Success in arbitration often depends on presenting strong evidence encapsulated in emails and letters exchanged during the business relationship, board approvals, contract records, expert reports where necessary, and well-prepared witness statements.

Parties are more likely to achieve favourable outcomes when they present their case in a consistent and coherent manner. This includes organising documents in a way that tells a logical and credible story, and ensuring that all pleadings are properly supported by relevant documents and witness statements. To this end, parties, especially corporate entities, must maintain diligent record-keeping for all transactions they enter into. It is also essential to implement proper handover procedures to ensure that personnel responsible for documentation transfer all relevant records before leaving the organisation.

Parties should timeously and completely disclose contents of transactions, disputes and all relevant documents to their counsel as this would ensure early identification of key areas of evidence. Parties should also anticipate evidentiary challenges i.e. privilege claims and work proactively with counsel to address them before the hearing stage.

Third, an arbitral award enforcement and challenge proceedings must be anticipated and planned from the point of negotiation of the main contract and/or arbitration clause. Winning an arbitral award is useful only if it can be enforced. Therefore, the parties should not wait until they receive an award before thinking about enforcement. The good thing is that the AMA now provides that any foreign award may be enforced in Nigeria.

For a claiming party, it is important to identify the assets of the opposing party and determine their location as, practically speaking, enforcement can only occur in jurisdictions where the award debtor has assets. The ultimate objective is to achieve a practical commercial outcome, and this means working towards an enforceable award from the outset, not as an afterthought. Hence, where necessary, parties should take early steps to protect/preserve assets that may be used to satisfy an award.

Further, considering that the very common ground that award debtors deploy in annulment proceedings is the public policy ground, parties must in choosing seats be mindful of the prevailing moral, social, economic, legal principles of the seat, as these issues determine how it interprets acts contrary to public policy in potential annulment proceedings. Parties must also be mindful of the arbitration friendliness of the seat. A jurisdiction that is not pro-arbitration may give an expansive interpretation to public policy.

In addition, parties should always be mindful of applicable limitation periods when deciding to commence arbitration, when structuring the procedural timetable for the arbitration and upon publication of the arbitral award. For example, under Nigerian law, arbitral awards must be enforced within six (6) years from the date the cause of action arose, excluding the period between the commencement of the arbitration and the date of the award. On the other hand, an application to set aside an arbitral award can only be made within 3 (three) months from the publication of the award.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in arbitration law in the next 12 months?

Enforcement is, arguably, still a major challenge/threat to the development of arbitration in Nigeria. Even though Nigerian courts are increasingly pro-arbitration, there is still some delay at the enforcement stage for many reasons. First, the courts are inundated with many cases and there may be considerable delay in the hearing and determination of the enforcement and annulment proceedings. Second, even where the application for enforcement is granted by the High Court, the award debtor still has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court, the exercise of which occasions further delay.

Third, there is regulatory uncertainty, especially in arbitration involving government agencies or public contracts in sectors like energy and infrastructure. The Nigerian government is now more cautious of its dispute resolution clauses going by its experience. As a result, some government institutions now insist that arbitration must take place in Nigeria, as enjoined by the ADR Policy, or that Nigerian courts must have oversight, and this sometimes causes delay or disagreement during contract negotiations.

Nonetheless, there is a growing advocacy for African disputes to be resolved within the continent. Increasingly, African governments and businesses are now insisting that arbitration proceedings take place on the continent, be governed by African laws and conducted by African arbitrators. This shift reflects a broader commitment to building arbitration capacity and ensuring that the resolution of disputes reflects the continent’s legal and commercial realities. The establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Dispute Settlement Body and the forthcoming AfCFTA Investment Protocol Arbitration Rules will likely accelerate this shift. Hence, for Nigerian companies doing business across Africa, planning early for investment treaty protection and cross-border enforcement under AfCFTA rules will provide a strong commercial advantage in the years ahead.

While the aforementioned may be seen as a challenge by parties who are used to seats like London or Paris, it is also a major opportunity for African seats, including Lagos, Johannesburg, and Kigali, which now offer modern arbitration frameworks, lower costs, and faster timelines.

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

Over the years, G. Elias has built a strong reputation for representing its client in complex and high-profile transactions and arbitrations and for consistently rendering services of highest standard to its clients. In achieving this, we adopt a number of approaches.

First, for every arbitration we handle, like every other assignment, we constitute an internal team with the requisite experience for the specific dispute. We then go ahead to build a clear case strategy by analysing the facts, identifying the risks, and analysing the strength or otherwise of the case. This approach allows us to determine the best approach for each dispute, including whether there is need to raise jurisdictional objections, apply for emergency or interim reliefs, seek early dismissal of weak claims, or phased hearings, among others. Next, we request for and gather documents which we consider material to the case.

Second, we ensure to communicate clearly and consistently. Arbitral processes can often become complex and difficult to follow, especially when large volumes of documents are involved. Hence, we make it easier for the clients through regular updates (and explanations) of key developments during the arbitral proceedings, including early warnings about any potential risks that may arise. We ensure that the client is carried along every step of the way in the arbitral process and provide proper witness counselling for potential witnesses in the arbitration proceedings.

Third, we try to provide the clients with some level of financial certainty, particularly as regards the costs of arbitration. Arbitration can be expensive if not properly controlled. To avoid this, we guide the clients in preparing clear budgets, and tracking spending against agreed stages. This way, clients know in advance what to expect, which helps them manage their dispute budgets better.

Fourth, at G. Elias, we approach arbitration, and dispute resolution at large, with a clear focus on achieving practical results, not just advancing legal arguments. Winning for us means aligning with our client’s business goals, whether that involves enforcing an award, recovering debts, helping protect or preserve assets, mitigating risks, or negotiating a favourable settlement. We take responsibility in delivering results. Our clients trust us because we stay firmly focused on outcomes that protect and advance their commercial interests.

Lastly, we have invested in the technology, facilities and support personnel that we need to excel at what we do. We are ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management System certified and are currently transitioning to ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management System certification.

5. What technological advancements are reshaping arbitration and how can clients benefit from them?

Three main developments are changing how arbitration is done, namely, (a) digital case management, (b) artificial intelligence (“AI”), and (c) forensic technology.

First, digital case management has made arbitration much more organised and efficient. Platforms like Opus 2 and CaseLines allow lawyers and tribunals to manage documents, filings, and hearing bundles online. Virtual and hybrid hearings are now common, especially under rules like those of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) UK (Nigeria Branch), Lagos Chamber of Commerce International Arbitration Centre (LACIAC), Lagos Court of Arbitration (LCA), Nigerian Institute of Chartered Arbitrators (NICArb), and Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, Lagos (RCICAL). This means parties, witnesses, lawyers or arbitrators no longer have to travel across countries for every hearing. For clients, this saves money, reduces delays, and makes it easier to involve international experts.

Second, AI now supports legal work in arbitration. AI tools can review large sets of documents quickly, highlight key evidence, and reduce the cost of document review during discovery. AI research tools help lawyers find decisions and arguments faster. Some tools even help shape cross-examination questions or test the strength of arguments. Hence, AI improves speed, accuracy, and consistency. For clients, this means better-quality work and lower legal costs. We, however, critically review any products of AI that we come across.

Third, forensic technology has become important for handling evidence in arbitration, especially in complex commercial disputes. Forensic tools can trace deleted emails, verify whether documents have been tampered with, track digital transaction records, or recover hidden financial data. In many classes of disputes, especially those that are fraud-related, forensic evidence can be decisive. It helps prove facts clearly and prevents the other side from hiding or destroying evidence. Also, the use of forensic experts early in cases could help secure evidence before the other party has a chance to interfere with them.

The clients who benefit most in arbitration today are those who use technology early and strategically. Technology, much more than a support tool, could be the difference between winning and losing a case. In our practice, we embrace the use of these technologies. This helps us work faster, control cost, and build stronger cases for our clients.