For some of us wey no know before, na today we go know: no be only Court get power to judge mata. Mata plenty so té e no fit possible make the court dey decide all of them. Na why Section 36 of our Constitution don give some other agencies power to judge some other matter. Dis agencies dem include investigative panel, military tribunal, statutory tribunal, and domestic or autonomous bodies. Etc.
But e get one rule wey apply to court and these other agencies dem… all of dem must to apply the rule of ‘fair hearing’. If you check Section 36(1) of our Consitution, dem talk am for there say: Every pesin must get fair hearing within reasonable time by a court or other tribunal wey law establish and which dem constitute in a way wey go secure dia independence and impartiality, in di determination of his civil rights and obligations.
The court sef join mouth talk am for di polular cases of LPDC v. Gani Fawehinmi (1985) 2 NWLR (Part 7) 300 and Denloye v. Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (1968) 1 ANLR 306 at 320 sey any tribunal or administrative body wey dey perform judicial or quasi-judicial power to decide anybodi mata must do fair hearing.
Wetin sef be dis fair hearing?
The straight tori of ‘fair hearing’ be say for anybodi wey wan judge mata, make e do am make everything balance. If we break am down, e mean say:
a) Hear di other side:
For law, dem dey call dis ‘audi alteram partem’. Wetin e mean be say make anybodi wey wan judge matter hear wetin all the people wey the mata concern wan talk.
That is to say, di person wey dey bring petition and di person dem bring am against….all of dem must talk. Di tribunal or di administrative body must don give evribodi adequate notice to prepare im case.
Na dis one mek di supreme court for di case of Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) All N.L.R. 149 state di significance of notice for fair hearing say:
i. Pesin must know di allegations against wey dem bring against am,
ii. Pesin must know di evidence wey support di allegations,
iii. Pesin must get fair opportunity to correct and counter di allegations,
iv. Di people wey dey investigate di charge must not receive evidence behind di pesin back.
b) No act as judge for your own case
Na ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ dem lawyers dey call this one. Dis bi sey pesin wey get personal interest or likelihood of bias for inside mata no fit be di judge. As court talk for Chiekwe Ikwunze Esiaga v. University of Calabar & 2 ors. (2004) 7 NWLR (pt. 872) 366, dis fit happen under three situations:
● Wia di judge get financial interest for di mata,
● Wia di judge get special or personal relationship with any of di party for di mata, or
● Wia the judge don show obvious hate for di fact of di case and no go fit suppress am.
Di big gist of this fair hearing as one Oga Justice talk am be say: “Not only must justice be done, it should also be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done”.
Wetin go come happen if fair hearing no dey for di mata?
E no go shock you if we tell you say administrative tribunals or authorities dey throwey dis fair hearing well well. Abi why dem go punish student for Student Disciplinary Committee for school when dem no even allow am talk pim or défend hinself? In some mata sef, di pesin wey bring case against anoda for professional misconduct sef go sit as one of di members of di adjudicating panel. O wrong nau!
If any of dis happen, na wetin go happen be dis. Di issue of fair hearing be like dat of jurisdiction. Di decision of the people wey decide di mata no fit stand, and the case go scatter.
As di Court talk for Adigun v. A.G Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.53)678, di right to fair hearing na fundamental constitutional right, so therefore, any breach of it whether for trial, investigation or inquiry nullifies di trial, investigation or inquiry and action wey dem take on them.
No dulling on your rights o.
Fair hearing na your right. If dem decide your mata for anywhere, and you feel say dem don violate your right to fair hearing, you no get anything to fear. You fit carry di case go di High Court of the State as it be under Section 46 of our Constitution.
You also fit approach di Federal High Court as it be for Fundamental Rights (enforcement procedures) Rules 2009 and as Kudirat Kekere-Ekun J.S.C talk am for di case of FUTMINNA v Olutayo (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 176
My pipu na for hia we go drop pen. Abeg LIKE, SHARE and follow us on Twitter @LAWGin_ng
lawgin.law.blog 