There is no doubt that the well-settled position is that in order to be fair, “hearing” or “opportunity to be heard” must, inter alia, encompass a party’s right to cross-examine or otherwise confront or contradict all the witnesses who testified against him.
– Ogunwumiju JSC. Junaidu v. State (2021)
SHARE ON
The appellants, on the footing of their contention ignored the imperativeness of cross-examination in our adversarial system of adjudication. Cross-examination has been described as the noble art which constitutes a lethal weapon in the hands of the adversary to enable him effect the demolition of the case of the opposing party, Oforlete v. State (2000) 3 NSCQR 243 at 268, per Achike, JSC. Cross-examination if rightly employed, is potent tool for perforating falsehood, Ayan v. State (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1376) 34 at 36, per Fabiyi, JSC. These pieces of evidence, elicited under the cross-fire of cross-examination, are potent and run pari Passau with the ones from evidence-in-chief, see Gaji v. Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583; Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 338. They belong to the respondent, see Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (pt. 1482) 205. As a matter of fact, the law views evidence procured from the heat of cross examination as more reliable and compelling than the ones oozing out of examination-in-chief, see Adeosun v. Gov., Ekiti State (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 581; Okuleye v. Adesanya (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1422) 321.
— O.F. Ogbuinya, JCA. Impact Solutions v. International Breweries (2018) – CA/AK/122/2016
It is also the law that the fairness of a trial can be tested by the maxim audi alteram partem. Either party must be given an opportunity of being heard, but where a party refuses to take advantage of the opportunity to traverse specific allegations made against him, the averments will be deemed admitted and the defendant cannot complain of lack of fair hearing.
— O. Oyebiola, J. Yakubu v. FRCN (2016) – NIC/LA/673/2013
The audi alteram partem rule stipulates that each party must be given an opportunity of stating his case and answering if he can any arguments put forward against it. See Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works 14 C.B. (N.S.) 180. The rule requires that a person liable to be directly affected by proposed administrative acts, decisions or proceedings be given adequate notice of what is proposed so as to give him an opportunity to make representations, and effectively prepare his own case and to answer the case he has to meet. It is therefore essential that the person involved be given prior notice of the case against him so that he can prepare to meet that case. – Nnamani, JSC. Garba & Ors. v. The University Of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 550
Now it has been held that the principle of or doctrine of fair hearing in its statutory and constitutional form is derived from the principle of natural justice under the twin pillars of audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua. The principle of fair hearing is fundamental to the administration of justice as enshrined under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It hinges on the conduct of a hearing which is fair to both parties to the suit and without bias or partiality in favour or against either of them who will thereby be prejudiced. See Ude v. State (2012) LPELR 14193 (CA); Uguru v. The State (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 771) 90; Newswatch Communications (CA) v. Attah (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144; Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 6 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 124; Nosepetco Oil and Gas Ltd v. Olorunimbe (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1307) 115. In Egbuchu v. Continental Merchant Bank Plc (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1513) 192 at 207, the apex Court held inter alia that: “The Constitutional provision for fair hearing mainly stems or germinates from two common law principles of natural justice. They are audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua. The meaning of the Latinism is, hear the other party; hear both sides. No man should be condemned unheard. What the rule or doctrine of fair hearing means is that the parties must be given equal opportunity to present their case to the Court and no party should be given more opportunity or advantage in the presentation of his case.” See also Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423. The issue of fair hearing is so fundamental and germane that any proceeding conducted without fair hearing amounts to a nullity and is bound to be set aside. See Tsokwa Motors (Nig) Ltd v. UBA Plc (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 347; Egbuchu v. Continental Merchant Bank Plc supra; Adigun v. Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678.
— S.C. Oseji, JCA. Access Bank v Edo State BIR (2018) – CA/B/333/2015
In law, pieces of evidence, elicited under the cross-fire of cross-examination, are potent and run pari passu with the ones from evidence-in-chief, see Gaji v. Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583; Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 338. They belong to the cross-examiner, see Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205. As a matter of fact, the law views evidence procured from the crucible of cross-examination as more reliable and compelling than the ones oozing out of examination-in-chief, seeAdeosun v. Gov., Ekiti State (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt.1291) 581; Okuleye v. Adesanya (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1422) 321.
— O.F. Ogbuinya JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. Longterm Global Cap. Ltd. & Ors. (September 20 2021, ca/l/1093/2017)
This submission is incontestible. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor cannot be a witness and a judge all at the same time. The likelihood of bias is a necessary inference from the assumption of the two positions. – Andrews Otutu Obaseki, JSC. Garba & Ors. v. The University Of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 550
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry