The Sanctity of Fair Hearing in the Adjudication Process in Nigeria and the Consequence of Its Disregard

The Sanctity of Fair Hearing in the Adjudication Process in Nigeria and the Consequence of Its Disregard 

AKILU SAADU,

Ahmadu Bello University Zaria

--- Fair hearing is an inherent fundamental human right, recognized both domestically and internationally. It is one of the pillars of natural justice upon which a 'just' and 'fair' trial is hoisted. Fair hearing is as old as the Earth itself; it was recorded in the account of Adam's breach of God's command and his subsequent sentence by the ultimate judge, God. As stated in the case of R v Chancellor of Cambridge (1723) 1 Str 557: "Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defense."

This piece will discuss the sanctity and inviolable nature of the principle of fair hearing in the Nigerian legal system. Meaning of Fair Hearing: According to Black's Law Dictionary, fair hearing is “a judicial or administrative hearing conducted in accordance with due process.” It was judicially explained in the case of *Okorie v State* (2015) All FWLR (Pt 922) 828 as "giving equal opportunity to the parties to be heard in litigation before the court." It connotes the fundamental right of a person to present his version of events before a court of law before a decision is reached (*see the case of Ayoola v. Egbeyalo* (2018) LPELR-44804(CA)).

Fair Hearing in the Nigerian Legal System: The doctrine of fair hearing has long received legal and judicial endorsement in Nigeria as a fundamental principle of justice. In the case of *Eze v FRN* (2018) All FWLR (Pt 923) 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 the Federal Republic of Nigeria and common law." Appreciatively, the tenet of fair hearing can be deciphered or gleaned from the carefully constructed wording of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the FRN (as amended), which, with regard to its significance in every judicial proceeding, emphasizes 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 its 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)). Moreover, fair hearing, as observed in the case of *Rear Admiral Francis Evhieve Agbiti v. The Nigeria Navy* (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt 1236) 175 per Adekeye JSC, requires the observance of the twin pillars of natural justice, namely:    a. *Audi alteram partem* (hear the other side)    b. *Nemo judex in causa sua* (no one shall be a judge in his own case). Instances where a trial can be said to be properly, fairly, and unbiasedly conducted have been enumerated and encapsulated in the case of *Ayoola v. Egbeyalo* (2018) LPELR-44804(CA), where the court held that: i. The court or tribunal shall hear both sides, not only in the case but also on all material issues in the case, before reaching a decision that may be prejudicial to any party in the case; ii. The court or tribunal shall give equal treatment, opportunity, and consideration to all concerned; iii. 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 iv. Having regard to all the circumstances, in every material decision in the case, justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to have been done. Fair trial is not for the applicant only; it is for all litigants or parties to the suit (i.e., plaintiff/prosecution and respondent/defendant). In *Newswatch Communication Ltd v. Attah* (2006) All FWLR (Pt 318) 580, the learned justice held: "The principle of fair hearing is a two-edged sword, for the plaintiff to be heard timeously and for the defendant to avail itself of the constitutional rights extended to it by the court to present its side of the case.” In addition, the principle of fair hearing is a sine qua non for every fair trial. 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 regarding 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 consequences and the wrath of the law. **Consequence of Non-Observance of the Fair-Hearing Principle in Proceedings:** The law has long been settled that where anything is done that is not in coherence or is incongruent with our corpus juris (constitution), it is null ab initio (this is the intent of the wording of Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution). Where an act, unanticipated or unrecognized by law, is done, that act cannot stand in the eyes of the law. To rely heavily on the maxim *ex nihilo nihil fit* (one cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand), 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: “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.” Similarly, in the case of *Dewuwa v. Okaradu* (1976) 9-10, the learned justice held: “A breach by a court of the right to fair hearing is crucial and goes beyond the trial court's jurisdiction. If established, it nullifies the entire proceedings in which the breach occurred.” However, the right to fair hearing does not exist in absolute terms; it is waivable. "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 to 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)). Moreover, fair hearing is not an unwavering right, as it was held in the case of *Ayoola v. Egbeyalo* (2018) LPELR-44804(CA) that: "Where a court has given every opportunity to a party to be heard, but that party decides not to utilize it, 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 the 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 its breach can render the entire proceedings null, inconsequential, and void, as seen from the aforementioned judicial affirmations and endorsements. It is not a mere irregularity but a fundamental error that cannot be ratified afterward. It is the view of the writer that the application of fair hearing is not only the responsibility of judges but of all human beings. Being a fundamental human right under our Constitution and other sacred laws, every person must apply it in their daily dealings and interactions with others. We should avoid self-judgment and promote the application of this principle of natural justice. ---