CRIMINAL LITIGATION

UNIT 8

CONSTITUTIONAL SAGEGUARD TO ENSURE FAIR TRIAL OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of criminal justice, ensuring that every accused person receives a just and impartial trial. The constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) enshrines several safeguards to protect this right. These safeguards are designed to ensure that the accused is treated with fairness, equality, and dignity throughout the legal process. Below are the key constitutional provisions and relevant Nigerian cases that illustrate these protections.

  1. Right to fair hearing: This is provided under section 36(1) of the constitution which guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a competent court or tribunal. This right is fundamental and cannot be derogated from, even in times of emergency. A fair hearing implies that both parties in a dispute are given an opportunity to present their case without bias or prejudice from the adjudicator. See the case of Ogboru V. Ibori (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 942) 319 where the court emphasized the importance of a fair hearing, stating that a decision reached without giving both parties an opportunity to be heard is null and void.
  2. Presumption of innocence: The presumption of innocence is a key element of the right to a fair trial provided under section 36(5) of the constitution and states that every person charged with a criminal offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused does not need to prove their innocence. See the case of Al-Mustapha V. State (2013) 17 NWLR (PT. 1383) 350 where the supreme court held that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional right that must be respected throughout the trial process. Any doubt arising from the evidence should be resolved in favor of the accused.
  3. Right to adequate time and facilities for defense: This is provided under section 36(6)(b) which provides that an accused person is entitled to adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense. This includes access to legal counsel, documents, and other resources necessary for building a strong defense. See the case of Ezeh V. State (2013) 16 NWLR (PT. 1380) 567 where the court underscored the importance of granting the accused sufficient time and access to materials needed for their defense, without which a fair trial cannot be said to have been conducted.
  4. Right to public trial: The right to a public trial is provided under section 36(4) of the constitution. This means that the trial should be open to the public and the media, except in circumstances where a private trial is necessary to protect public order, morals, or the welfare of minors. See the case of Ishola V. Ajiboye (1994) 6 NWLR (PT. 352) 506 which highlighted that a trial conducted in secret violates the accused's right to a public hearing, making any judgment passed in such a trial liable to be overturned.
  5. Right to an interpreter: If the accused does not understand the language used in the court, it is provided under section 36(6)(e) which mandates the provision of an interpreter. The interpreter must be competent, and the service must be provided at no cost to the accused. See the case of Asari Dokubo V. FRN (2007) 12 NWLR (PT. 1048) 320 where the court affirmed the necessity of an interpreter in ensuring that the accused fully understands the proceedings, thereby safeguarding their right to a fair trial.
  6. Right against self-incrimination: An accused person is not compelled to give evidence at their trial as provided under section 36(11) which provides that no person who is tried for a criminal offense shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial. This protects the accused from being forced to incriminate themselves. See the case of Nnadi V. State (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 949) 258 where the court reiterated that forcing an accused to testify against themselves is unconstitutional and renders the proceedings unfair.
  7. Protection against double jeopardy: This is provided under section 36(9) which provides that no person shall be tried again for an offense for which they have already been either acquitted or convicted. This principle, known as "double jeopardy," ensures that an accused is not subjected to repeated prosecutions for the same offense. See the case of Usman V. State (2014) 11 NWLR (PT. 1418) 588 where the court emphasized that subjecting an accused person to multiple trials for the same offense violates the protection against double jeopardy and is a breach of their constitutional rights.
  8. Right to examine witnesses: This is provided for under section 36(6)(d) of the 1999 constitution where an accused person has the right to examine, in person or through legal representation, the witnesses called by the prosecution. This provision ensures that the accused can challenge the evidence presented against them. See the case of Igwe V. State (1982) 9 SC 174 where the court held that denying the accused the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses infringes upon their right to a fair trial.


CONCLUSION

The constitutional safeguards provided under the 1999 Constitution are vital in ensuring that an accused person receives a fair trial. These rights protect the accused from abuse of power, ensure equality before the law, and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system. Courts in Nigeria have consistently upheld these rights, reinforcing their importance in the administration of justice.