STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

BIAS MUST BE REAL – IT MUST HAVE AN IMPRESSION ON OTHER PEOPLE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The test of determining a real likelihood of bias is that the court does not look at the mind of whoever sits in judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was real likelihood that the judge would, or did, infact, favour one side at the expense of the other. It rather, looks at the impression which would be given to the other people. The likelihood of bias, nevertheless, must be real, not a surprise, caricature or a game of chance.

– T. Muhammad, JSC. Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) – SC.211/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

bias

NATURE OF A BIAS

The above reproduced remarks cannot be translated to a statement of bias. As bias in its ordinary meaning is the expression of an opinion or feeling in favour of one side in a dispute or argument resulting in the likelihood that the Judge so influenced will be unable to hold the even scale of justice – See the cases of: (1) Kenon and Ors V. Tekam and Ors (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 12 and (2) Womiloju V. Anibire (2010) 10 NWLR (pt. 1203) 545. For an allegation of judicial bias to succeed the person relying on it must establish his allegation based on concrete evidence of some extra judicial factors such as conduct of the person/Judge against whom the allegation is made. The Court, upon that evidence would then consider and decide whether the test laid down in Olue V. Enenwali (1976) 2 SC 12 or (1976) All NWLR 70 that is, from the perspectives of a reasonable man, the allegation of bias was established. The test is objective. See the case of: Womiloju V. Anibire (supra).

— O.F. Omoleye JCA. Amaechi V. The Governor of Rivers State & Ors. (CA/PH/342/2015, 8 May 2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

NATURE OF BIAS IN A PROCEEDING

‘Bias’, generally, is that instinct which causes the mind to incline toward a particular object or course. When a judge appears to give more favour on consideration to one of the parties before him, either in his utterances, attention or actions, which is capable of perverting the cause of justice, or where fair hearing cannot be said to take place, all in favour of the party he supports covertly or overtly, then an allegation of bias against him can be grounded. That of course is a Judicial bias. But where a trial has been conducted in which the authority of the court has fairly been exercised in consistence with the fundamental principles of justice embraced within the conception of the process of law, then there is said to be a fair hearing. This contemplates of allowing the parties equal opportunity to present evidence; to cross-examine witnesses and for the trial court to make findings which are supported by evidence.

– T. Muhammad, JSC. Womiloju v. Anibire (2010) – SC.211/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT IS BIAS?

Egwumi v. State (2013) LPELR-20091(SC) 23, A-B per Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C. defined ‘bias’ as follows: “Bias means anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause a Judge to decide a case otherwise than on the evidence.”

Was this dictum helpful?

DETERMINATION OF LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS IS OBJECTIVE TEST TO BE APPLIED

In the determination of a likelihood of bias the test is not subjective but objective. In other words, it is from the point of view of a reasonable man who happened to be present in the court and watched the proceedings. In Chief Abiola v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1995) 7 NWLR (pt.405) 1, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Deduwa v. Okorodudu (1976) 1 NMLR 236 in which the court cited with approval what Lord Denning said in Metropolitan properties Co. Ltd v. Lannan and Others: “In considering whether there was a real likelihood of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the justice himself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or did, in fact favour one side at the expense of the other. The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless, if right-minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, and then he should not sit. And if he sits, his decision cannot stand … The court will not inquire whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The Judge was biased.” The moment right-minded or right-thinking people are of the view that the Judge was biased or there was likelihood of bias so much violence is done to the fair hearing principles as contained in section 33(1) of the 1979 constitution. This is because the Judge in his biased mind has closed the frontiers of fair hearing against the party he hates as he opens the door to accommodate the case of the party he favours. That is injustice and a court of Law should not be involved in it.

— Niki Tobi, JCA. Nnamdi Eriobuna & Ors. V. Ikechukwu Obiorah (CA/E/77/99, 24 May 1999)

Was this dictum helpful?

RAISING BIAS ON JUDGES BASED ON TRIBE OF LITIGANT

I must not conclude this judgment without addressing the unnecessary and unfair allegations against the learned trial judge by Appellants’ counsel. Judges are human beings, they do not fall from heaven nor are they manufactured from Mars or Neptune. As with all human beings they originate from somewhere, a race, a community, or tribe. Appellants’ counsel devoted a lot of energy on attacking the personality of the learned trial judge on pages 17-19 of the Appellants’ brief on the basis of an alleged kinship with the 2nd Respondent. The attack was unnecessary and mischievous in the circumstances of this case. This Court held in Abalaka v. Minister of Health (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 963) 105 at 134 per Muhammed JCA thus: “The constitutional provision of fair hearing has no tribal insinuation of the composition of the bench vis- a-vis the tribes of the parties. A party should not be heard to complain that because he is not of the same tribe with members of the bench, he cannot have a fair hearing. That in my humble view is the most invidious and incongruous approach to this very important legal principle. If the contention is correct, then most if not all trials in our judicial system, must be faulted because the composition of most Courts may not agree with the tribes of the litigants. Perhaps an example will make the point clearer. No Asian, American, German or any other foreigner would submit to the jurisdiction of a Nigerian Court because virtually all Courts in Nigeria are constituted by Nigerians. Was Section 3 of the 1979 Constitution, which is now Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution , designed to cure such a crude situation. No, not at all. Tribal Composition at the bench per se cannot be basis for the charge of bias or likelihood of bias, unless the aggrieved party shows by the conduct of the bench such bias, or likelihood of bias. The constitutional provision of fair hearing is already large and omnibus and I am not prepared to expand the frontiers beyond its onerous content or ambit.”

— H.M. Ogunwumiju, JCA. Godwin Ukah & Ors. V. Christopher A. Onyia & Ors. (CA/E/295/2008, 21 Jan 2016)

Was this dictum helpful?

BIAS DEPENDS ON THE IMPRESSION IT WOULD CREATE ON OTHER PEOPLE

In the case Kenon v. Tekam (2001) 14 NWLR (pt. 732) pg. 12, Bias is defined as – “An opinion or feeling in favour of one side in a dispute or argument resulting in the likelihood that the court so influenced will be unable to hold an even scale.’ On the test for determining real likelihood of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the Justice himself or at whoever it may be who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was real likelihood that he would, or did in fact favour one side at the expense of the other. The court looks at the impression which would be given to the other people. Even if he was as impartial or could be, nevertheless if right minded persons think that in the circumstances there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, and then he should not sit. And if he does sit, his decision cannot stand. The reason is plain enough. Justice is rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking that the judge was biased.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.