• Introduction

The right to fair hearing is also known as the principle of natural justice encapsulated in the two traditional latin maxims: audi alterem patem and nemo judex in causa sua. The right to fair hearing entails the following:

Easy access to the court/Tribunal

  1. The right to be heard;
  2. The impartiality of the adjudicating body; and
  • Speedy trial

Where any of these is lacking, there is absence of fair hearing[1].

Audi alterem patem simply means that the accused be given opportunity to be heard[2] while Nemo judex in causa sua principle demands that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The question here is not whether the judge was biased in fact. Rather, it is whether a detached onlooker looking at what the court or judge has done will have the impression that the judge was biased.[3]

The adjudicator must not be interested in any of the parties or the subject matter by virtue of his relationship with any of them or the outcome of the proceedings[4]. If the person deciding your fate is related or appointed by your accusers, there may be element of bias whether in court or at any administrative panel.

[1] See Effiom Vs. The State (1995) 1 NWLR (pt. 373) 507.

[2] See S.287 CPA. See Otapo Vs. Sunmonu (1987) 5 SCNJ 57.

[3] Ajibaiye Vs. Ajibaiye (2007) All FWLR (pt. 359) 1321.

[4] See Garba Vs. Uni-Maid (1986) 1 NSCC 245; Yabugbe Vs. COP (1992) 4 NWLR (pt. 234) 152

If you or any relative is facing Administrative panel, Tribunal or court trial, you need to take note of the following:

Publicity of Trial

Publicity of trial here means trial in a place where the public has unimpeded access. In such trial, open court shall be where the trial will take place not Judges chambers most especially where members of the public are not excluded from the trial.[1]

Presumption of innocence

Every person charged before a court of law for any offence shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is established in court. To do otherwise is to ask the accused to establish his innocence.[2]

Information of crime committed

The accused shall be informed promptly in the language he understands and in details of the nature of the offence. This is in addition to the provisions of Section 35 (3) dealing with arrest and detention. Note that failure to inform the accused of the nature and/or details of an offence lesser in nature than the one charged is not fatal if the accused has been informed of the graver offence.[3]

Adequate Time and facility to prepare for defence

An accused person has right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence. The time being referred to in this subject matter relates not only to the first day to which his case is slated for the defence but also includes any other reasonable adjournment that may be sought by the defence.[4]

Note: the court may not tolerate unreasonable requests for adjournment.[5]

Where adjournment is sought to procure attendance of a witness, the accused must show:

  1. That the witness is material
  2. That he has not been guilty of neglect in procuring him
  • That he can procure his attendance for a certain date.

Note: “facilities” as used in the sub-section includes making available to the accused the proof of evidence including witness statements in the case.

 

Right to Counsel of his own choice or defend himself

This right is simply means that a person cannot be denied a right to a counsel/lawyer of his choice neither can a counsel/lawyer be imposed on him if he chooses to defend himself. [6]

 

Examination of Prosecution Witnesses and present his witness

The accused has a right not only to call and examine his witnesses but also to cross-examine the witnesses called by the prosecution. This is a mandatory provision in the constitution.[7] Any contrary position will fail.

 

Right to Interpreter

An accused person has right to be informed promptly and in a language he understands, and in detail, the nature of the offence for which he is to be charged. Failure to provide one where one is required is fatal to the proceedings and any decision reach against you will fail.[8]

Where one is provided and found to be incompetent, any conviction based on it is liable to be quashed[9].

The provision of interpreter should be at no cost to the accused.

However, where the accused fails to inform the court of his defect in the language of the court, the trial will stand as the failure will be treated as a mere irregularity[10].

 

Right to silence

This right is both constitutional and statutory.[11]

NOTE: In addition to these various constitutional provisions, there is statutory provision for Mandatory Legal Representation in capital offences.

 

[1] S. 36 (4) of the 1999 Constitution

[2] Eyu Vs. The State (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 78) 602. Okoro Vs The State (1988) 12 SCNJ 19. Uso Vs COP (1972) 11 SC 37. See the exceptions  in SS. 141 (3)(b) & 142  of the Evidence Act. See the proviso to S. 36 (5) CFRN.

[3] Sections 36(6)(a), 179 (2) CPA; 218 (2) CPC; Maja Vs. The State (1980) 1 NCR 212, Nwachukwu Vs The State (1986) 4 SC 378.

[4] See Section 36 (6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, Udo Vs The State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 82) 316. See also Gokpa Vs. IGP (1961) 1 All NLR 423

[5] See   Yanor Vs The State (1965) 1 All NLR 193; Shemfe Vs. COP (1962) NNLR 87.

[6] S 36 (6)(C) of the 1999 Constitution

[7] See Section 36 (6)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, Tulu Vs Bauchi N.A (1965) NMLR 343; Idrisu Vs. The State (1967) 1 All NLR 32.

[8] See Section 36 (6)(e) of the 1999 Constitution, Anyanwu Vs The State (2002) 13 NWLR (pt. 783) 107.

[9] Ajayi Vs Zaria N.A.(1964) NNLR 61.

[10] Udosen Vs. The State (2007) All FWLR (pt. 356) 669. See also The State Vs Gwonto (1983) 3 SC.67

[11] See– Sections. 36 (11) of the 1999 Constitution, 160 (a) of Evidence Act; 287 (1)(a) CPA; 236 (1)(a) CPC. See also Sugh Vs The State (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 77) 475.

Anyone can be accused of professional misconduct at his/her place of work or at any point in time in his/her career and be called to face Administrative panel or a professional Disciplinary Committee. Since the outcome of the Panel/Committee will decide your fate, it is important that the rule of Natural Justice be followed so that you would not be maliciously indicted on the altar of bias. You need virtually all rights listed under “All I need to know when I am facing trial/ Tribunal/ Administrative Panel” under Right to fair hearing.

Such prosecution is illegal. Subject to the provisions of the constitution, a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty for the offence is prescribed in a written law. Such offence and conviction must be known to law.[1]

Moreover, conviction on retro-active legislation is unlawful. This means that a person shall not be convicted on account of an act which at the time it took place, did not constitute an offence and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence heavier than that in force at the time the offence was committed.[2]

However, if the offence you are being charged now was an offence committed years ago and constituted a crime when it was committed without timeframe which we lawyers call statute-barred, you cannot invoke retro-active legislation as a defence.

[1] –Section 36 (12) of the 1999 Constitution See Aoko Vs. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400; A.G.F. Vs. Isong (1986) 1QLRN 75

[2] Section 36 (8) of 1999 Constitution

Do not panic as such action will fail. The rule is one trial for one offence. It is popularly known as the rule against double jeopardy[1].  All you just need is to show the following:

  1. a) that the first trial was on a criminal charge;
  2. b) that the trial was by a competent court;
  3. c) that the trial ended in a conviction or an acquittal;
  4. d) that the offence is the same as the first or one for which the accused could have been convicted at the first trial although he was not charged with same.

On pardon, once a person has been pardoned for an offence he cannot be tried for the same offence nor be made to suffer disabilities on that account again[2].

[1] – S 36 (9 of the 1999 Constitution; Nafiu Rabiu Vs The State (1980) 8-11 SC. 130

[2] Section 36 (10) of the 1999 Constitution; Falae Vs Obasanjo (No. 2) (1999) 4 NWLR (pt. 599) 476; S.221 (1)(b) CPA

  • Introduction

Right to personal liberty is one of the most important of all rights with a wider scope that covers other rights such as right to movement, rights to assemble and associate. This is a right where everyone whether you are a Nigerian or Non-Nigerian cannot be subjected to any arrest, imprisonment and any other physical cohesion contrary to the law under any guise.

The court simply put it that “Personal liberty means privileges, immunities, or rights enjoyed by prescription or by grant. It denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but rights to contact, to have an occupation, to acquire knowledge, to marry, have a home, children, to worship, enjoy and have privileges recognized at law for happiness of free men.”[1]

Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution provides:

 

Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases in the accordance with a procedure permitted by law.

 

Before this right can be deprived, certain situations must be complied with as specified in the constitution and authorized by the law such as power to arrest a person based on the order of a court or when it is reasonably necessary to prevent a person from committing a crime. A person can also be deprived of this right upon reasonable suspicion of committing an offence. Some certain situations are discussed under sub-headings under the right to personal liberty.

[1] Adewole v. Jakande (Alhaji) (Governor Lagos State) (181) 1 NCLR 262 at 278 HC Lagos

The powers to arrest are vested in the police. This will enable them to carry out their task of detecting and catching criminals and suspects for trial by court. Our advocacy in this area is that some of our dear police friends, should not abuse this power. People can legally challenge abuse of power of arrest.

A private person can also arrest a suspect where the police are not around. As a law abiding citizen, DO NOT beat the suspect or kill him/her because the person you just arrested is still a suspect who might be innocent. Do not detain the person; take him to the nearest police station. Police will handle the rest. But if you doubt whether justice will be served, you can notify us. We can inform the leadership of the State Police Command or the National headquarters for proper follow up and monitoring. Do not kill anyone as people often raise force alarms against their perceived enemies or rivals with sole aim of getting them lynched. Taking the life of another is a murder which may lead to being sentenced to death also.

The procedure for effecting arrest is that the person making the arrest must actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, for words alone are not sufficient unless there is submission to the custody by words or action. Where there is voluntary submission, the police officer may not use force. The offender should be informed of the reason for his arrest except where the reason is obvious or where it is suspected that the offender may escape or resist arrest[1]. However, if the warrant of arrest was not immediately available at the time of arrest, the officer or any other person executing a warrant of arrest may still arrest the offender. But the existence of the warrant of arrest must be disclosed to the arrested person and thereafter the warrant should be shown to the person as soon as practicable[2]. The person making the arrest is allowed to use reasonable force to arrest the offender but the person arrested shall not be handcuffed unless there is apprehension of violence.

Once a warrant of arrest has been executed (that is used to make an arrest), the warrant of arrest expires and can therefore no longer be used to make another arrest not even to arrest the person earlier arrested with the same warrant[3].

It should be noted that a person can also be arrested without a warrant by a police officer, judicial officer, a Justice of the Peace or a private person, as the case may be, where he is suspected of having committed an offence or found committing an offence. Notwithstanding the fact that, the offence for which the person is arrested is one for which the law that created the offence requires that an offender can only be arrested with a warrant of arrest[4].

[1] section 28(3) of Criminal Procedure Act and section 60 of Criminal Procedure Code

[2] section 29 of CPA and section 61 of CPC

[3] R. v. Akinyanju (1959) WRNLR at 253

[4] section 10(2) of CPA and section 26(a) of  CPC

Anyone arrested with or without a warrant shall be taken with all reasonable dispatch to a police station or other place for receiving such persons. Where the accused is arrested by a private person, he must be handed over to the police as soon as possible or without necessary delay. Do not hold a suspect at home or anywhere else aside taking him or her to the police station.

A private person can also arrest a suspect where the police are not around. As a law abiding citizen, DO NOT beat the suspect or kill him/her because the person you arrested is still a suspect who might be innocent. You must handover the suspect to the police without unnecessary delay. You cannot detain a suspect. Failure to hand him/her over to the police may make your arrest unlawful. Like we do assure people, if you doubt whether justice will be served at the police station, you can notify the police command in your state or notify us. We can inform the leadership of the State Police Command or the National headquarters or ask for proper follow up and monitoring. Do not kill anyone as people often raise force alarms against their perceived enemies or rivals with a target of getting them lynched. Jungle justice is illegal and can end those indulging in it in life jail or execution depending on the circumstances of the matter.