In order to achieve Justice, countries worldwide institute a legal system of some sort. Legal and political theorists have argued with the problem of whether Justice is a part of law or simply a moral judgment about law. An example of the latter is when we speak of an ‘unjust law’. Justice is however an inherent component of the law and one the major object of the law is to sustain and uphold the principle of Natural justice. Hence, Justice is not separate from law or distinct from it.
Justice is an entirely subjective concept, largely depending on political affiliation, and previous experience of the legal systems. Similarly to Law, there no universal accepted definition as there is a vast amount of documentation providing different definitions and theories of Justice.
NATURAL JUSTICE
Ordinarily, Natural Justice implies fairness, equity and equality. The term Natural Justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the expression ‘duty to act fairly’. The term Justice according to the Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth edition in page 942 means the fair and proper administration of the law. Natural Justice is referred to a process whereby Justice is served in a natural way devoid of bias and sentiment and under careful analysis, thought and consideration.
The principles of Natural Justice encompasses the following two rules:
Nemo judex In Casua sua; No one can be made a judge in his own cause or rule against bias
Audi Alteram Partem; Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no one should be condemned unheard.
In light of the foregoing, the importance of Natural Justice would be briefly examined so as to ensure the comprehensiveness of the subject matter.
The importance of Natural Justice or duty to act fairly are;
It encourages moral judgment in individual cases and opposes unjust law and decisions.
It gives parties to a suit opportunity to be heard and represented effectively and efficiently in their private capacity.
Natural Justice sustains and upholds the fundamental human right of the people.
The object of this paper would not be achieved without giving a careful consideration of the concept of Fair Hearing as it encompasses the two pillars of Natural Justice.
FAIR HEARING
The Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition in page789 defined Fair hearing as a judicial or administrative hearing conducted in accordance with due process. Simply put, it is a hearing conducted impartially in accordance with due process of law which a party has had reasonable notice as to time, place and issues or charges, for which he has opportunity to prepare, at which he is permitted to have assistance of a lawyer. It should be noted that the right to fair hearing is constitutionally recognized and can be seen in Section 36 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 As Amended. The provision of the section goes thus “In the determination of his civil right 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.” Furthermore the right to fair hearing extends to criminal offences where a person has been charged to court. This can be vividly seen in Section 36(5) of the CFRN which goes inter alia “Every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty”. Section 36(6) of the CFRN also provides to that effect.
In Abubakar Audu V FRN (2013)53 NSCOR 456 @469: The law is settled that Fair hearing within the meaning of Sec. 36(1) of the CFRN means a trial or hearing conducted according to all legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to parties. Fair hearing requires the observation and consideration of the two principles/components of Natural Justice, namely Nemo Judex In Casua Sua and Audi Alteram Partem.
It is settled in the case of Adigun V A. G Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 53)674, that any proceeding that is conducted in breach of any party’s right to fair hearing, no matter how well conducted would be rendered a nullity. See also Okafor V A.G Anambra State (1991)3 NWLR (pt.200)59.
It should however be noted that the denial of fair hearing is trite in law. The effect of this is to render the whole proceeding in the course of which the breach occurred a nullity. Per KEKERE EKUN, JSC in Nwokoro V Oruma (1990) 3NWLR (pt. 1361) 22, held “A proceeding which has denied any of the parties there right to fair hearing shall be quashed and declared null and void.
Another important constitutional provision safeguarding the right to fair hearing is the requirement that Justice should not only be done, but should be seen to have been done. Thus all civil and criminal proceedings including their judgment shall be held in public except where the interest of defense, public safety, public morality, public health, public order otherwise dictates as provided in Section 45(1).
The above two rules which are regarded as the components and pillars of Natural Justice will be carefully examined below.
NEMO JUDEX IN CASUA SUA
This is one of the sacrosanct principles of law. It is a Latin phrase that literally means, no one should be a judge in his own case. That is, no one can judge in a case in which he or she participates as a party (i.e. pursues personal benefit). In the legal practice, magistrates (judges and prosecutors) are to be withdrawn a lawsuit in which they have a personal interest or a party. It should be noted that any court decision, taken against the provision of this legal doctrine, should be quashed and the lawsuit be re-heard by another, non-interested magistrate since the goal of the law is to secure delivering fair justice. In the case of Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 2 SUPP SCR 51, the principle of Nemo Judex In Casua Sua was thoroughly emphasized upon.
AUDI ALTEREM PATEM
This principle of Law literally means “hear both sides”. It is the right to be heard. Whenever there is a case before the law for determination, the accused and the respondent must have a right to be heard before the court. The accused also has a right to know about the case which is made against him and the evidence which are going to be used against him so that he gets the chance to prove himself innocent. In an ancient case, The King V Chancellor, University of Cambridge (1722), Justice Eyre remarked;
“The laws of God and man both have given the party an opportunity
To make his defence, if he has any…..
Even God Himself did not sentence upon Adam before he was called
Upon to make his defense”.
In conclusion, the violation of the Principle of Natural Justice which generally happens due to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction should be adequately avoided in any country so as to ensure and uphold the principle which will one way or the other lead to the peak of the Legal system adopted in the country.
Ologuntere Abdul-azeem Olamide is a 400level student of University of Ilorin. He can be reached via [email protected]