Understanding Judicial Bias in Nigeria: A Commentary on Ikumonihan v. State (2013) LPELR-20529(CA)

■ Introduction.

The Nigerian legal system rests on the principle of fair hearing and impartial adjudication. One of the greatest threats to justice is bias, whether real or perceived, in the mind of the judge. The Court of Appeal in Ikumonihan v. State (2013) LPELR-20529(CA) restated what amounts to bias and the standard by which it should be tested.
This article examines the principle of bias as clarified in this case, situating it within the broader jurisprudence of Nigerian courts.

■ The Case Background
In Ikumonihan v. State, one of the issues raised on appeal was the allegation of bias against the trial judge. Counsel for the appellant contended that the conduct of the judge gave rise to the impression of partiality, thereby rendering the trial unsafe.
The Court of Appeal, in resolving the issue, laid down the principle for determining bias, relying on earlier authorities including Udo v. C.S.N.C. (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 116 and Abiola v. FRN (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 405) 1.

■ What is Bias?
The Court defined bias as follows:
“…bias is a serious allegation on the person and integrity of the Judge and a counsel who engages in that must support its case with hard facts.”

In other words, bias is not to be inferred lightly. It goes to the very root of justice, as it questions the neutrality of the decision-maker.

■ The Test for Bias.
The Court, quoting with approval the pronouncement of Bello, CJN in Abiola v. FRN, restated the test:
The court does not look at the mind of the judge to determine whether he actually favoured one side or not.
Instead, the court considers the impression on right-thinking members of the public.
Even if the judge is, in fact, impartial, if reasonable people would perceive a real likelihood of bias, then he ought not to sit.
If he does, his decision is tainted and cannot stand.
This test is rooted in the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

■ Why Bias Matters.
The reasoning of the Court underscores several key points:
1. Impartiality is central to justice: A biased judge cannot deliver true justice, as fairness requires equal treatment of all parties.
2. Perception is as important as reality: Even if a judge is subjectively impartial, public confidence is shaken if his conduct suggests otherwise.
3. The high threshold for proving bias: Because an allegation of bias impugns the integrity of the judge, it must be backed by “hard facts,” not mere suspicion or dissatisfaction with the outcome of a case.

■ Practical Implications for Lawyers and Litigants
Counsel must tread carefully: Accusing a judge of bias is a serious matter and must not be made frivolously. Unsupported allegations can backfire on counsel.
Judges must avoid questionable conduct: Even seemingly harmless remarks or actions that create doubt in the mind of litigants may undermine the appearance of impartiality.
Litigants must understand the standard: It is not enough to feel wronged by a decision; the conduct complained of must reasonably suggest a likelihood of bias to the ordinary observer.

■ Conclusion.
The decision in Ikumonihan v. State reinforces the principle that impartiality lies at the heart of justice. Bias, whether actual or perceived, corrodes public trust in the judiciary. While the standard for proving bias is high, it is essential that both judges and lawyers remain vigilant to uphold not just the reality but also the appearance of fairness.
As Bello, CJN, aptly put it: “Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless, if like-minded persons would think that in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. And if he does sit, his decision cannot stand.”
Justice thrives not only in the purity of judgment but in the confidence that every litigant leaves the court assured that their matter was heard with fairness, without fear or favour.

Reference
S.A & Company.
Law reports.