The International Bar Association has raised fresh concerns over the state of the rule of law globally after a new survey of legal professionals identified significant gaps between the importance attached to fundamental legal principles and their implementation in practice.
Nigeria was among the countries represented in the IBA’s 2026 Rule of Law Backsliding Survey, released this week by the association’s Rule of Law Forum. The research examined judicial independence, impartiality, accountability, access to justice and the role of the legal profession in protecting the rule of law.
The survey gathered responses from 326 legal professionals across more than 64 countries between August and December 2025. Respondents came from private legal practice, the judiciary, academia, government, civil service, non-governmental organisations, bar associations and other law-related institutions. Of the responses received, 316 were ultimately included in the detailed analysis.
Wide Gap Between Principle and Practice
According to the IBA, respondents rated core rule-of-law principles extremely highly, with average importance scores ranging between 9.2 and 9.7 out of 10.
Implementation, however, attracted substantially lower scores of between 6.2 and 6.8 out of 10, revealing what the association described as a significant implementation gap across jurisdictions.
Access to justice provided one of the clearest examples.
While 83 per cent of respondents considered access to justice before independent and impartial courts to be extremely important, only 43 per cent believed that principle was well implemented in their jurisdictions.
The figures point to a persistent challenge for justice systems: constitutional and institutional recognition of legal principles does not necessarily guarantee their effective operation in everyday practice.
Judicial Independence Under Pressure
Judicial independence emerged as another major concern.
The survey found that 67 per cent of respondents identified governmental actors as a threat to judicial independence, while 83 per cent identified political parties as a potential threat.
At the same time, 75 per cent of respondents considered their judiciary generally impartial, yet 48 per cent said they had personally witnessed or encountered judicial bias.
The IBA noted that this difference between general institutional confidence and individual experience deserves particular attention.
Concerns were also raised over inadequate judicial resources. Globally, 64 per cent of respondents disagreed that their judiciary received sufficient human, material and financial resources.
The report identified underfunding, inadequate infrastructure and personnel shortages as factors capable of contributing to delays in justice administration and restricting effective access to courts.
Nigeria Included, But No Separate Nigerian Score
Nigeria was one of eight countries represented within the survey’s Africa and Middle East grouping, alongside Ghana, South Africa, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Oman and Qatar.
However, the IBA did not provide a separate Nigeria-specific breakdown, meaning the global or regional percentages should not be interpreted as measurements of the Nigerian judiciary alone.
Only 15 respondents came from the Africa and Middle East grouping. Among those respondents, corruption was the factor most frequently identified as affecting judicial impartiality, cited by 11 of the 15 participants.
This limited sample means the regional findings are better understood as indicators of concerns raised by participating legal professionals rather than a statistically comprehensive assessment of every justice system in the region.
Bar Associations Identified as Critical Safeguards
One finding carries particular significance for organised legal professions such as the Nigerian Bar Association.
Approximately 95 per cent of respondents recognised professional legal bodies — including bar associations, bar councils and law societies — as important safeguards for judicial independence.
The finding reinforces the institutional responsibility of professional associations not only to protect the welfare of lawyers but also to defend constitutionalism, independent courts and the integrity of justice institutions.
The IBA report recommends stronger monitoring and response to emerging threats to the rule of law, greater involvement by the legal profession in law and policy-making, and stronger collaboration between lawyers, civil society organisations and academic institutions.
It also calls for greater protection of judges and lawyers against intimidation, harassment and improper interference, while emphasising professional ethics, continuing legal education and increased pro bono engagement.
LegalLinkz Perspective
The significance of the report lies not simply in whether countries formally recognise judicial independence or access to justice.
The deeper test is whether judges can decide cases without improper interference, whether litigants can realistically access the courts, whether judicial institutions have sufficient resources to function effectively, and whether court decisions command respect once delivered.
For Nigeria, the survey should be read carefully rather than sensationally. It does not provide a standalone scorecard for the Nigerian judiciary. Nevertheless, Nigeria’s participation places the country’s continuing conversations around judicial funding, autonomy, integrity and public confidence within a broader international debate over rule-of-law backsliding.
The challenge identified by the IBA is ultimately one of implementation: the rule of law must operate in practice and not remain merely an institutional promise.
Source: International Bar Association — Rule of Law Backsliding Survey
Additional Verification: Channels Television — IBA Warns of Growing Threats to Judicial Independence, Rule of Law
RELATED ON LEGALLINKZ: Judicial Integrity: Reforming the Bench Beyond Rhetoric
