The Essence Of Fair Hearing

The right to a fair trial is fundamental to the
rule of law and to democracy itself. The right to a fair trial is absolute and cannot be limited. It requires a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The very essence of fair hearing under section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 is a hearing which is fair to both parties to the suit, be they plaintiffs or defendants or prosecution or defence. The section does not contemplate a standard of justice which is biased in favour of one party and to the prejudice of the other. Rather it imposes an ambidextrous standard of justice in which the court must be fair to both sides of the conflict. The hearing must be fair in accordance with the twin pillars of justice, namely audi alteran partem and nemo judex in causa sua.
A person should be given ample and full opportunity of presenting his own side of a matter (audi alterem partem rule) L.S.D.C. V  Foreign Finance Corporation, the court of appeal held that when a governor or his official is  acting under section 28 of the land use act to revoke the right of occupancy of a land holder, the governor or his official must, as a condition precedent, give the affected  person fair hearing as guaranteed in the constitution. Where there is no such hearing, the revocation is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
Secondly, to secure the independence and impartiality of the adjudicating tribunal or court, It is also a rule of fair hearing that an accuser should not sit as a judge in his own case (nemo judex  incausa sua rule).  In the case of Garba and 8 others V. University of Maiduguri, the deputy Vice Chancellor whose house was one of those burnt down during a student riot at the University of Maiduguri was the head of the investigation panel set up by the university to investigate the riot. The appellants were  some of the students expelled as a result of the findings of the panel the supreme court held that a case of bias exists as the deputy Vice – Chancellor was complainant; a persecutor and a judge in his own case. Thus, the absence of fair hearing was held to have vitiated the decision of the panel.
Another provision safe guarding the right to fair hearing is the requirement that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to have been done. Thus all civil and criminal proceedings include their judgement shall be held in public except where the interest of defence, public safety morality, order, otherwise  dictates, public hearing may not be allowed if the person affected thereby is below the age of eighteen years. Where a person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall among other things be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty.

Nkechi Bright-Ewere