The Sanctity of Fair-Hearing in Adjudication Process in Nigeria; and the Consequence of Its Disregard.
By Akilu Sa’ad
INTRODUCTION:
fair hearing is an inviolable fundamental right of a man by virtue of been human and which is recognized, appreciatively, by our local or rather domestic and international laws.
It is one of the pillars of natural justice upon which a ‘just’ and ‘fair’ trial are hoisted .
Fair hearing is as old as the mother earth; it was recorded from the Adam’s breach upon the command of his Lord and his subsequent sentence by the best judge, God. It was said in the case of R V CHANCELLOR OF CAMBRIDGE(1723)1 STR 557. that: ” even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defense”.
Hence, this piece will discuss the sanctity and inviolable nature of the principle fair hearing in the Nigerian corpus juris.
MEANING OF FAIR HEARING:
According to Black law dictionary “is a judicial or administrative hearing conducted in accordance with due process”.
It was judicially expounded in the case of OKORIE V STATE (2015)ALL FWLR (pt922) 828 as : ” giving equal opportunity to the parties to be heard in the litigation before the court”
“It connotes the fundamental right of a person to present his own version of events before the Court of law, before a decision is reached”.( see the case of AYOOLA v. EGBEYALO (2018) LPELR-44804(CA ).
FAIR HEARING IN NIGERIAN LEGAL SYSTEM.
The doctrine of fair hearing has long received a legal and judicial endorsement in Nigeria as a fundamental principle of justice . In the case of EZE V FRN (2018) ALL FWLR (pt923)172. The supreme court held that: ” the principle of fair hearing in the process of adjudication and administration of justice is fundamental and so entrenched in the constitution of federal Republic of Nigeria and common law”.
Appreciatively, the tent of Fair hearing can be deciphered or gleaned from the carefully- constructed wordings of section 36 (1) of the 1999 constitution of FRN (2011 amended) and with regard to its consequentiality in every judicial proceeding, it raises a loud voice in the observance of the principle.
The constitution states: ”
“ in the determination of his civil rights and obligations including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a FAIR HEARING within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure it’s independence and impartiality”.
” it is the pivot upon which the entire judicial process or the administration of justice revolves. It is the keystone of the trial process as no trial can be sustained unless it accords with the principles of fair hearing……..this right to be heard is so fundamental a principle of our adjudicatory process that it cannot be compromised on any ground” (read the case of UBA PLC v. MUSA & ANOR (2018) LPELR-45627(CA).
More so, fair hearing in the case of REAR ADMIRAL FRANCIS EVHIEVE AGBITI V. THE NIGERIA NAVY (2014)4NWLR (PT1236)175 per Adekey JSC observed that :
“fair hearing requires the observance of the twin pillars of natural justice namely:
a – Audi alteram partem (that is hear the other side)
b- Nemo judex in causa sua ( that is no one shall be a judge in his own case).
Instances where trial can be said to properly ,fairly and unbiasedly conducted has been enumerated and encapsulated in the case of AYOOLA v. EGBEYALO (2018) LPELR-44804(CA)(infra). where the court held that:
- That the Court or tribunal shall hear both sides not only in the case, but also in all material issues in the case, before reaching a decision which may be prejudicial to any party in the case;
- That the Court or tribunal shall give equal treatment, opportunity, and consideration to all concerned:
iii. That the proceedings shall be held in public and all concerned shall have access to and be informed of such a place of public hearing; and
- That having regard to all the circumstances, in every material decision in the case, justice must not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to have been done .
Fair-trial is not for the applicant only; it is for the whole litigants or parties to the suit(i.e plaintiff /prosecution respondent/defendant ) In the NEWS -WATCH COMMUNICATION LTD V. ATTAH (2006) ALL FWLR (pt 318)580 ,the learned justice held thus:
“ the principle of fair hearing is two-edged sword ,for the plaintiff to be heard timeously and for the defendant to avail itself of the rights, constitutional rights extended to it by the by the court to present its side of the case”.
in addition, the principle of fair- hearing is sine quo non for every fair trial to be conducted; it postulates that where a person’s legal rights or obligations are called into question, he should be accorded full opportunity to be heard before any adverse decision is taken against him with regard to such rights or obligations. It is an indispensable requirement of justice that an adjudicating authority, to be fair and just, shall hear both sides, giving them ample opportunity to present their case ; the disregard of which attracts consequence and the wrath of Law
CONSEQUENCE OF NON-OBSERVANCE OF FAIR- HEARING PRINCIPLE IN PROCEEDING.
The law has long been settled that where anything done which is not in coherence or incongruent with the our corpus juris, constitution, it is null ab initio ( this is the intendment of the wordings of section 1(3) of 1999 constitution) ; and where an act is , unanticipated or unrecognized by law, is done, that act can not stand in the eyes of the law . To rely heavily on the maxims : ‘ex nihilo nihi fit’ ( one can not place something on nothing and expect it to stand).
Therefore, the fate of any judicial trial conducted without giving a ‘fair-hearing ‘to the litigants is the erosion of the entire proceedings.
In the famous case of MATHEW V. STATE (2017( ALL FWLR (pt 8608) . The court held that:
“ if the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision , it is immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice”.
more so, In the case of DEWUWA V. OKARADU (1976)9-10, the learned justice held to wit:
“ a breach by a court of the right to fair hearing is crucial an goes beyond the trial Court’s jurisdiction, if established, it nullifies the entire proceedings In which the breach occasioned”.
However, right to fair hearing does not however exist in absolute terms; it is waiverable.
” The concept of fair hearing postulates that it is the duty of a Court to create a conducive environment and atmosphere for a party to enjoy his right to fair hearing, but it does not say that it is part of the duty of the Court to make sure that the party takes advantage of the atmosphere or environment so created to exercise his right to fair hearing. It is not part of the business of a Court to compel a party to exercise his right to fair hearing. Where a party fails, refuses or neglects to take advantage of or utilize the environment created by a Court to exercise his right of fair hearing, he cannot turn around to complain of lack of fair hearing”. (see the case of UBA PLC v. MUSA & ANOR (2018) LPELR-45627(CA).
More over, Fair-hearing is not an unwaverable right as It was held in the case of AYOOLA v. EGBEYALO (2018) LPELR-44804(CA)(infra) that:
“where a Court has given every opportunity to a party to be heard but that party decides not to utilize same, he will be deemed to have waived the right, and he cannot be heard to complain that his right to fair hearing was breached”.
“A party cannot complain of denial of fair hearing, after he had, in fact, been duly heard, or given opportunity to be heard, in a Suit” (see the case of AIRTEL LTD v. AGWALEMERE & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44814(CA).
CONCLUSION:
The principle of Fair-hearing is so fundamental in our legal system that the breach of it can render the entire proceedings naught , inconsequential and nullity as seen from the aforesaid judicial affirmation and endorsement.
It’s the view of the writer that, the application of fair- hearing is not only reposed on the robed shoulders of judges, rather, on all human beings. Being it a fundamental human right under our canonical constitution.
Every human has to apply it in his daily dealings and interaction with other human beings. we should avoid self- judgement ; and promote the application of this natural justice principle.
