Ondo State Chief Judge Champions Alternative Dispute Resolution as Essential Complement to Modern Legal Practice

Justice Olusegun Odusola clarifies that Alternative Dispute Resolution is not a threat to lawyers but a tool to reduce backlogs and improve access to justice.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 10, 2026, 10:11 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from Newsdiaryonline

Redefining the Boundaries of Legal Service

The Chief Judge of Ondo State, Justice Olusegun Odusola, has formally declared that the adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution, known as ADR, is not a threat to traditional legal practice but a vital evolution of the justice sector. Speaking on Friday at a stakeholders' engagement in Ore, Odusola argued that moving beyond standard litigation for civil cases is an essential complement to the existing judiciary. He maintained that justice should not be viewed as a service confined solely to the physical walls of a courtroom, but as an active delivery of resolution accessible to every corner of society.

Strengthening the Multi-Door Courthouse Initiative

The town hall meeting, themed around strengthening public confidence through the Ondo State Multi-Door Courthouse, served as a platform to advocate for decentralization. Odusola explained that this initiative is a powerful tool for achieving inclusivity, bringing mediation and arbitration services closer to citizens regardless of their financial status or geographic location. By embracing these diverse "doors" to justice, the judiciary aims to ensure that the legal system remains functional and responsive to the needs of the modern populace.

Mitigating the Crisis of Judicial Backlogs

A primary motivation for the push toward ADR is the alarmingly high backlog of cases currently hindering the efficiency of conventional courts. The Chief Judge decried these delays, noting that prolonged litigation often leads to the disenfranchisement of citizens and potential miscarriages of justice. ADR is presented as a strategic solution to alleviate this pressure, allowing the court system to focus on complex criminal and constitutional matters while civil disputes are settled through more streamlined, mutually beneficial processes.