PRESS STATEMENT - PORT HARCOURT, September 2, 2015
RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT PROBE PANNEL: PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS ALARM
The attention of the Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (IHRHL), has been drawn to the alarms being consistently raised on the subject: Procedural Fairness of the Rivers state government Judicial Probe Panel to investigate the past administration of Governor Chibuike Amaechi . It is in this regard that we issue the present Advisory to the State government, to the effect that due consideration be given to such critical alarms, as it has everything to do with the legitimacy of the Panel process and delivery of its eventual outcome.
IHRHL, from the outset maintains and very strongly, that accountability , both vertical and horizontal, are critical ingredients of any quality democracy. No well meaning rule of law based and democracy deepening organization, should quarrel with any legitimate attempt at demanding accountability of any previous administration. The proviso as obtains in every civilized society, must be that in demanding accountability, fair procedural process, which is a fundamental human rights and constitutional requirements, be strictly adhered to, for purposes of credibility of the process and legitimacy of its product.
IHRHL therefore, strongly notes as follows:
That the ideals and principles of international human rights regime recognizes that the ordinary rule by which justice should be administered are the rules of natural justice. This rule is most relevant and should apply to this panel which has an investigative and disciplinary powers.
There has been a consistent serious allegation that a fundamental right to procedural fairness has been contravened, and is likely to be contravened.
That panel is expected to act judicially and should therefore not be exempted from complying with the fair hearing requirements of the Constitution and relevant human rights instruments globally. The requirement of impartiality and independence of those sitting in judgment is critical, to enable fair hearing and legitimacy of outcome.
That this panel has the capacity of listlessly gathering materials, and judicially preparing the ground, for the court or tribunal to later come forward and sit in judgment, thus presenting that organ’s job as almost inconsequential for the purpose of the fate of the accused. By attending the accused would have taken his first step towards his jeopardy and his ruin.
That in the course of its judicial or quasi judicial function, therefore, the panel should be bound by the principles that govern exercise of judicial function. God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence, in a most impartial situation. The ideals and principles of human rights frowns at impatient accuser Judges or authorities in a most undisguising manner.
That it is a fundamental human rights requirement, that in the determination of any person’s civil rights 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.
That the implication is the forgoing principle is that where there is likelihood of bias on the part of the person sitting in judgment, that person must not determine the case or the judgment; which draws in a further principle which is itself, an aspect of the “thou shalt not be a Judge in your own cause “ and the “hear the other side” Rule. Under human rights regime, these principles are eminently common sense principles and need no justification. It is also worthy of notice that under our legal system, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction; therefore, none can be a complainant, prosecutor and judge at the same time.
That a proper understanding of the concept of bias is absolutely necessary in the proper application of the principles of natural justice. The fundamental test in our legal process is what an ordinary reasonable man or woman would regard as bias. In view of the alarm raised, it would be proper to respond positively to the question: Would a reasonable person who watches the ongoing debate about the establishment of the panel, its processes, go home and say that justice has been done to the accused or shall be done?
That it would amount to a sham justice, if this allegation is proved, to set out for a kill against any accused person with a judge perceived to be already in the arena presiding in the matter. Procedural fairness would have been defected as the process would cease to be fair immediately the aura of impartiality disappears.
IHRHL therefore, calls on the State Government and the Panel as constituted to take seriously the issues of procedural fairness and bias as raised, with a view to correcting same and make necessary amends in the interest of natural justice. This is critical because of the gravity of the attachable punishment or consequences of the outcome of the panel decision on the accused. It is pertinent that patience, not impatience and unnecessary speed is necessary to foster justice. In the quest for justice, two wrongs have never and will never culminate in a right.
IHRHL calls on the membership of the panel to insist on not failing principles, but if it becomes necessary, fail principalities and powers, who may be out to subvert justice, by excusing themselves from the panel. They should do justice to the accused, the state and to history. They must show that the Rule of Law knows no fear, and when duly applied, heavens never fall.
IHRHL calls on the State government to recognize that ours is a constitutional democracy. It is of the essence of democracy that all its members are imbued with a spirit of the rule of law which exude confidence and trust. Those in power positions must be willing to respect the minimum standards of civilization, and accord fundamental rights to everyone without discrimination of any sort.
IHRHL insists that in democratic societies fundamental human rights and freedoms are more than paper aspirations. They form part of the law. And it is the special province of judges to ensure that the law’s undertakings are realized in the daily life of the people. In a society ruled by law, all public institutions and officials must act in accordance with the law. The judges in this sense bear particular responsibility for ensuring that all including organs of government conform to legal principles of a free society.
IHRHL finally, warns that any product of a panel that lacks procedural fairness, may not meet the standards globally expected of such panels, therefore renders same inconsequential. It is also extremely important that judges of such panels should not become more executive minded than the executive, which no doubt would lead to judicial subservience.
Signed:
Anyakwee Nsirimovu
Executive Director
RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT PROBE PANNEL: PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS ALARM
The attention of the Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (IHRHL), has been drawn to the alarms being consistently raised on the subject: Procedural Fairness of the Rivers state government Judicial Probe Panel to investigate the past administration of Governor Chibuike Amaechi . It is in this regard that we issue the present Advisory to the State government, to the effect that due consideration be given to such critical alarms, as it has everything to do with the legitimacy of the Panel process and delivery of its eventual outcome.
IHRHL, from the outset maintains and very strongly, that accountability , both vertical and horizontal, are critical ingredients of any quality democracy. No well meaning rule of law based and democracy deepening organization, should quarrel with any legitimate attempt at demanding accountability of any previous administration. The proviso as obtains in every civilized society, must be that in demanding accountability, fair procedural process, which is a fundamental human rights and constitutional requirements, be strictly adhered to, for purposes of credibility of the process and legitimacy of its product.
IHRHL therefore, strongly notes as follows:
That the ideals and principles of international human rights regime recognizes that the ordinary rule by which justice should be administered are the rules of natural justice. This rule is most relevant and should apply to this panel which has an investigative and disciplinary powers.
There has been a consistent serious allegation that a fundamental right to procedural fairness has been contravened, and is likely to be contravened.
That panel is expected to act judicially and should therefore not be exempted from complying with the fair hearing requirements of the Constitution and relevant human rights instruments globally. The requirement of impartiality and independence of those sitting in judgment is critical, to enable fair hearing and legitimacy of outcome.
That this panel has the capacity of listlessly gathering materials, and judicially preparing the ground, for the court or tribunal to later come forward and sit in judgment, thus presenting that organ’s job as almost inconsequential for the purpose of the fate of the accused. By attending the accused would have taken his first step towards his jeopardy and his ruin.
That in the course of its judicial or quasi judicial function, therefore, the panel should be bound by the principles that govern exercise of judicial function. God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence, in a most impartial situation. The ideals and principles of human rights frowns at impatient accuser Judges or authorities in a most undisguising manner.
That it is a fundamental human rights requirement, that in the determination of any person’s civil rights 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.
That the implication is the forgoing principle is that where there is likelihood of bias on the part of the person sitting in judgment, that person must not determine the case or the judgment; which draws in a further principle which is itself, an aspect of the “thou shalt not be a Judge in your own cause “ and the “hear the other side” Rule. Under human rights regime, these principles are eminently common sense principles and need no justification. It is also worthy of notice that under our legal system, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction; therefore, none can be a complainant, prosecutor and judge at the same time.
That a proper understanding of the concept of bias is absolutely necessary in the proper application of the principles of natural justice. The fundamental test in our legal process is what an ordinary reasonable man or woman would regard as bias. In view of the alarm raised, it would be proper to respond positively to the question: Would a reasonable person who watches the ongoing debate about the establishment of the panel, its processes, go home and say that justice has been done to the accused or shall be done?
That it would amount to a sham justice, if this allegation is proved, to set out for a kill against any accused person with a judge perceived to be already in the arena presiding in the matter. Procedural fairness would have been defected as the process would cease to be fair immediately the aura of impartiality disappears.
IHRHL therefore, calls on the State Government and the Panel as constituted to take seriously the issues of procedural fairness and bias as raised, with a view to correcting same and make necessary amends in the interest of natural justice. This is critical because of the gravity of the attachable punishment or consequences of the outcome of the panel decision on the accused. It is pertinent that patience, not impatience and unnecessary speed is necessary to foster justice. In the quest for justice, two wrongs have never and will never culminate in a right.
IHRHL calls on the membership of the panel to insist on not failing principles, but if it becomes necessary, fail principalities and powers, who may be out to subvert justice, by excusing themselves from the panel. They should do justice to the accused, the state and to history. They must show that the Rule of Law knows no fear, and when duly applied, heavens never fall.
IHRHL calls on the State government to recognize that ours is a constitutional democracy. It is of the essence of democracy that all its members are imbued with a spirit of the rule of law which exude confidence and trust. Those in power positions must be willing to respect the minimum standards of civilization, and accord fundamental rights to everyone without discrimination of any sort.
IHRHL insists that in democratic societies fundamental human rights and freedoms are more than paper aspirations. They form part of the law. And it is the special province of judges to ensure that the law’s undertakings are realized in the daily life of the people. In a society ruled by law, all public institutions and officials must act in accordance with the law. The judges in this sense bear particular responsibility for ensuring that all including organs of government conform to legal principles of a free society.
IHRHL finally, warns that any product of a panel that lacks procedural fairness, may not meet the standards globally expected of such panels, therefore renders same inconsequential. It is also extremely important that judges of such panels should not become more executive minded than the executive, which no doubt would lead to judicial subservience.
Signed:
Anyakwee Nsirimovu
Executive Director
Comments
Post a Comment