The Indispensability of Fair Hearing: A Constitutional Imperative in Nigerian Jurisprudence

■ Introduction

The Bedrock of Procedural Justice

In any legal system aspiring to uphold the rule of law, the principle of fair hearing stands as a non-negotiable cornerstone. It is a fundamental tenet of natural justice, ensuring that all parties to a dispute or administrative process are afforded a just and impartial opportunity to present their case, respond to allegations, and defend their interests before a decision affecting their rights or obligations is rendered. In the Nigerian context, this principle is not merely a common law doctrine but a sacrosanct constitutional right, forming the bedrock upon which the legitimacy and integrity of our judicial and quasi-judicial processes are built.

This article examines the multifaceted nature of the right to fair hearing in Nigeria, exploring its constitutional underpinnings, essential elements, and the profound implications of its breach, particularly for legal practitioners and stakeholders in the justice sector.

Constitutional Entrenchment: Section 36, CFRN 1999 (as amended)

The right to fair hearing is robustly entrenched in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), specifically within Chapter IV, which deals with Fundamental Rights. This constitutional safeguarding elevates the principle beyond mere procedural formality to an inalienable right, the denial of which fundamentally vitiates any proceedings.
Section 36(1) of the Constitution unequivocally declares:

"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 a manner as to secure its independence and impartiality."

This provision extends the right to both judicial proceedings (courts) and administrative tribunals, ensuring that governmental actions affecting individual rights are subjected to the same standards of fairness.

For criminal jurisprudence, Section 36(4) of the Constitution provides analogous protection:
"Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal..." (with permissible exceptions for public interest, defence, public order, etc.).

Furthermore, Section 36(6) meticulously enumerates specific rights afforded to an accused person, which are indispensable components of a fair hearing in criminal trials. These include:
■ The right to prompt and comprehensible information regarding the charge.

■ Adequate time and facilities for defence preparation.

■ The right to personal defence or by a legal practitioner of choice.

■ The right to examine prosecution witnesses and present defence witnesses.

■ The right to an interpreter.

■The right to free legal aid in specified circumstances.

■ Essential Components of a Fair Hearing.

Nigerian courts, through a plethora of judicial pronouncements, have consistently elucidated the core elements that constitute a fair hearing. These are not exhaustive but represent the indispensable minimum:

■ Adequate Notice: A party must receive timely and clear notice of the case against them, including the nature of the allegations, the specific claims, and the time, date, and venue of the hearing. This ensures sufficient time for preparation and meaningful participation. As often reiterated by the appellate courts, proper service of processes is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair hearing.

■ Opportunity to be Heard (Audi Alteram Partem): This Latin maxim, meaning "hear the other side," is the cornerstone. It mandates that every party must be given a full, unhindered, and equal opportunity to present their arguments, tender evidence, call and cross-examine witnesses, and respond to any claims or evidence presented by the opposing side. A judgment based on un-responded allegations or evidence is a quintessential denial of fair hearing.

■ Impartiality of the Tribunal (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua): "No one should be a judge in their own cause." This principle demands that the adjudicator (judge, panel member, or administrative officer) must be independent and free from any form of bias, whether direct or indirect. The test for bias is often objective: would a reasonable person, properly informed, apprehend that the judge or tribunal was biased? If so, the hearing is tainted, regardless of actual bias. This extends to pre-judgment of issues or personal interest in the outcome.

■ Public Hearing within a Reasonable Time: Generally, judicial proceedings, particularly criminal trials, are required to be conducted in public to promote transparency and accountability. Furthermore, the constitutional mandate for a hearing "within a reasonable time" underscores the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, preventing undue hardship, economic loss, and the erosion of public confidence.

■ Equality of Arms: All parties to a dispute must be afforded equal opportunities and treatment by the tribunal. This implies equal access to information, equal time to present their case, and equal scope for challenging the opposing side's submissions.

■ The Nullifying Effect of a Breach

The right to fair hearing is so fundamental that its breach is considered an irremediable defect, rendering the entire proceedings and any decision arising therefrom a nullity, irrespective of how well-conducted the proceedings might otherwise appear. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has repeatedly emphasized this point, affirming that an allegation of denial of fair hearing goes to the root of the entire adjudication, and where established, the appropriate order is invariably to set aside the proceedings and revert the parties to the position ab initio.

However, it is equally important to stress that a party who, despite being afforded ample opportunity to be heard, deliberately fails or refuses to utilize that opportunity, cannot subsequently claim a denial of fair hearing. The right is to the opportunity to be heard, not a guarantee that a party will always present their case, nor that they must be compelled to do so.
P.H.C.N V. ALABI (2011) ALL FWLR (557) page 698 at page 710, paras C-E.

■ Conclusion

The principle of fair hearing is not a mere procedural technicality to be invoked at convenience; it is the very soul of justice, providing an indispensable shield against arbitrariness and ensuring the adherence to due process. It is the cornerstone upon which public confidence in the judiciary rests and a vital mechanism for upholding the fundamental human dignity of every individual within the Nigerian legal framework. As legal professionals and citizens, upholding and vigorously defending this constitutional imperative remains paramount for the sustained health and legitimacy of our justice system and the enduring strength of our democracy.