The Paradox of Public Policy in Nigerian Arbitration: A Protective Principle or Judicial Loophole?

Abstract

Arbitration was anchored on party autonomy, granting parties control over procedure and outcomes. In Nigeria, however, this autonomy was constrained by the doctrine of public policy, which remained undefined under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (AMA). This ambiguity created interpretative discretion for courts, producing both flexibility and unpredictability. Public policy thus embodied a paradox: it safeguarded fundamental values such as legality, morality, and social order, yet simultaneously functioned as a judicial loophole that enabled expansive intervention, undermining arbitral finality. This article examined the domestic and international dimensions of public policy in Nigerian arbitration, analyzing judicial decisions that oscillated between broad discretion and narrow restraint. It argued that inconsistent judicial attitudes complicated the balance between autonomy and oversight, eroding confidence in Nigeria as an arbitral seat. Legislative clarification, judicial training, and institutional reform were recommended to reduce uncertainty, align with global best practice, and reinforce Nigeria’s credibility as a regional arbitration hub.