Fair Hearing is the backbone of every legal system. It is constitutionally enshrined, reiterated in legislation and invoked almost ritualistically in the halls of justice. Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) promises that “every person shall have the right to hear the determination of his case within a reasonable time by an impartial tribunal.” Although this commitment to fair hearing is unequivocal on paper, it is less so in practice. It is inconsistent, selective and sometimes completely absent when it is needed most.
This is no accident but is structural. It is about the very administration of justice, to whom it is directed and what is valued. When considered through the rehabilitative lens, the failure to afford fair hearing is a stark demonstration of injustice. A system that fails to afford fair hearing is not merely failing to afford due process; it is undermining the very possibility of rehabilitation.
The Constitutional Promise and Its Limitations
Nigeria’s fair hearing provision is comprehensive. It covers criminal and civil proceedings, disciplinary committees, administrative tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies. The courts have liberally construed this provision, focusing on issues of notice, opportunity to be heard, access to counsel and absence of bias. In theory, failure to provide fair hearing completely invalidates proceedings.
However, the effectiveness of this right is contingent upon access, availability and time. For most Nigerians, especially those who encounter the judicial and penal systems, fair hearing is only relevant after the damage has been done. It is only relevant as a basis for appeal after several years, not as a lived experience at the point of need.
This is important because fair hearing is not just about accuracy. It is about the process. When one is denied voice, clarity and dignity in proceedings, this occurs at once. For people who are struggling to overcome poverty, stigma and confinement, this makes it harder to rehabilitate, not easier.
Pre-Trial Practices and the Loss of Fair Hearing
One of the most obvious areas where the law and reality part ways is during the pre-trial process. Arrests are made without adequate investigation. Charges are pressed before the evidence is gathered. The accused are held in custody for extended periods of time without legal representation or knowledge of the charges against them. The magistrate courts, overwhelmed and underfunded, regularly hold suspects in custody through the use of holding charges that do not have constitutional support.
On a rehabilitative level, these practices are highly detrimental. Pre-conviction detention interferes with employment, family, education and mental health. It also exposes the accused to crowded prisons where violence, disease and hopelessness are rampant. By the time a hearing takes place, the accused has already been punished in ways that are not recognized by the law.
Fair hearing is meant to protect against this form of silent punishment. However, procedural irregularity has institutionalized it. When early rights are treated as if they are worthless, it sends a message that control is of greater importance than justice.
Court Delays and the Psychological Consequences of Waiting
In addition, the delays that do occur are a major hindrance to the justice process. The adjournments, which may be caused by the transfer of cases to other courts, the nonavailability of case files, the nonavailability of witnesses or the congested dockets of the courts, may cause the trials to drag on for years. The phrase “within a reasonable time” is stretched so far that it loses all meaning.
For the defendant, especially if he is in custody, delays are far from neutral. They cause him anxiety, despair, and desperation. To the victim or complainant, delays cause frustration and demotivation. In terms of rehabilitation, delays are also counterproductive. How can one be made to feel responsible for one’s actions if one is kept in a state of uncertainty for so long?
For rehabilitation to be effective, there is a need for clarity of purpose. There is a need to be able to address the issue of harm caused, the proportion of the response and the opportunity for change. The delays are endless and the effect is the freezing of the individual in a state of suspended animation where neither punishment nor rehabilitation is effectively felt.
Legal Representation and Inequality of Voice
Equal hearing requires equality of arms but the Nigerian legal system takes place within a context of social inequality. Many defendants cannot afford legal representation. Legal aid is limited in both availability and effectiveness, so defendants must face trained prosecutors, complex legal procedures and arcane legal rules they cannot understand.
This not only affects the result but also affects how the result is perceived. If you cannot understand what is happening, you cannot feel that you have had a fair hearing, however good the result is from a legal point of view.
Rehabilitation also requires a degree of legitimacy. People are more likely to engage with change if they believe that they have been heard, that they have been treated with respect.
If they have not, then they do not feel that they are engaging with change voluntarily, but are being coerced into it by a process that they do not understand. The law may have dealt with the case, but it has not dealt with the disconnection between the individual and the legal process.
Administrative and Disciplinary Tribunals
The fair hearing concern is not limited to the criminal courts. Universities, professional organizations and disciplinary bodies often have disciplinary powers with limited procedural protections. Notice of charges may be unclear. Decision-makers may have both investigative and adjudicative roles. There may be no full disclosure of the evidence before a decision is made.
These are important tribunals because they often deal with young people, workers and professionals in the early stages of their lives. A defective disciplinary process can ruin a life of learning and working forever. From the rehabilitational perspective, disciplinary action should be directed towards changing the behavior, not merely excluding and stigmatizing the person.
When the hearing process becomes a ritual of punishment rather than a genuine search for the truth, we are failing to use the process to learn, to hold people accountable, and to reintegrate the individual into the community in a positive way.
The Carceral Context and Lost Opportunities for Reform
Perhaps no place does the absence of a fair hearing cause more damage than in Nigerian correctional facilities. Many individuals are simply awaiting trial. Some have been incarcerated longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged crimes.
This creates a problem with rehabilitation efforts because people are less likely to participate when there is no guarantee that their situation will ever be resolved. A system that cannot provide a fair and timely hearing cannot hope to rehabilitate.
Furthermore, the lack of a fair hearing creates a sense of cynicism. When people see the legal system as arbitrary and unfair, it makes it more difficult to trust it when they are released from prison.
Why Reform Must Be Rehabilitative, Not Just Procedural
More than just tougher laws or more appeals is needed to close the gap between law and reality. A change of focus is needed. Fair hearing must be seen as a mandatory constitutional requirement.
This means more investment in early legal counsel, less pre-trial incarceration, better case management and accountability for delay. It also means training judges, prosecutors and members of tribunals to view fair hearing as an indispensable necessity.
Rehabilitation is not soft justice. Rehabilitation is effective justice. A justice system that hears people well, treats them consistently and disposes of cases on time makes room for responsibility, growth and rehabilitation. A system that does not will continue to breed resentment, recidivism and social disintegration.
Conclusion
Nigerian fair hearing provisions are robust on paper but tenuous in practice. This disconnect between the two is caused by structural inequalities, institutional limitations and an impoverished understanding of justice that privileges outcomes over process.
From the rehabilitative perspective, this disconnect is also costly. It is costly to individuals before guilt is established, it is costly after decisions are made and it is costly to the very notion of justice we seek. Fair hearing is not just about winning or losing; it is about whether the justice system can be a space of correction, restoration and reintegration.
Unless fair hearing is experienced rather than merely invoked, the disconnect between the two will continue. So will the quiet costs of this disconnect.
