LECTURE NOTE FOR WEEK 4

CONCEPT OF BIAS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

Concept of Bias
The term Bias means “Whether a judge has pre-determined the issue or has pre-conceived the
issue”. It is the pre-determination of the issue that makes the judgment bias. Bias means an
operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to a party or issue. Such
operative prejudice may be the result of a preconceived opinion or a predisposition or a
predetermination to decide a case in a particular manner, so much so that it does not leave the
mind open. In other words, “bias” may be generally defined as partiality or preference, which
is founded on reason and is actuated by self-interest –whether pecuniary or personal.
The rule against Bias is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, requiring that any decision-
making authority consists of impartial individuals who act fairly and without prejudice. In
this context, bias refers to any preconceived opinion or predisposition that might influence a
person’s judgment concerning a party or an issue. Bias encompasses anything that could lead
someone to decide a case based on factors other than the presented evidence. The rule against
bias aims to prevent any improper factors from influencing a judge’s decision in a specific
case. It is rooted in the understanding that it is human nature to avoid deciding against one’s
own interests.
The primary goal of this rule is to instil public confidence in the impartiality of administrative
adjudication. As stated by Lord Hewart CJ in R v. Sussex, ‘justice must not only be served but
should also be perceived as being done without any doubt’. A decision tainted by bias is
considered invalid, rendering the trial “Coram non judice” (before a judge lacking proper
authority).
Rule against Bias
The Rule against Bias means that decision-makers and judges should not have any personal,
financial, or preconceived feelings or opinions that could influence their judgment in a case.
They should be impartial and treat everyone fairly and without favouritism to ensure a just
and fair outcome. The rule against bias is fundamental to natural justice and fair
administrative proceedings.
The “Nemo judex in causa sua” principle emphasizes that no one should act as a judge in
their own case, commonly known as the rule against bias.
Types of Bias
The rule against bias can be categorised into different types of bias, such as:
1. Personal Bias: Refers to bias arising from a personal relationship between the
decision-maker and one of the parties involved in the case.
2. Pecuniary Bias: Occurs when a decision-maker stands to gain a financial benefit, no
matter how small, from the outcome of the case.
3. Subject Matter Bias: Arises when the decision-maker has a direct or indirect interest
in the subject matter of the case.

1
 4. Policy Notion Bias: Relates to bias arising from preconceived notions or policy
decisions made by the decision-maker.
5. Pre-conceived Notion Bias: Refers to bias arising from the decision-maker’s pre-
existing opinions or ideas about the case.
6. Bias on Account of Obstinacy: Occurs when a decision-maker unreasonably and
persistently upholds their own decision, despite valid reasons for reconsideration.
The rule against bias is an essential safeguard to uphold the principles of justice and fairness
in any judicial or administrative process. It ensures that decisions are made objectively,
without any undue influence or favouritism. When the rule against bias is violated, it can
invalidate the decision or the entire process being declared unfair and unlawful.
Generally, four types of bias are recognized in the field of administrative law:
(a) a preconceived point of view regarding issues of law or policy;
(b) factual preconceptions concerning the parties in particular litigation;
(c) partiality or personal prejudice;
(d) identifiable interest.

Administrative Adjudication
Administrative adjudication is the process by which an administrative agency issues an
affirmative, injunctive, or declaratory order. It is the process whereby administrative
authorities exercise judicial or quasi-judicial powers for the finding of facts, application of
Law to facts and the determination of the rights and obligations of persons. The idea of
administrative adjudication has been seen as an obstruction to the notion of separation of
powers as judicial powers are constitutionally vested in the judiciary under S.6(1) and (2) of
the 1999 constitution. Administrative agencies are executive organs and as such, should not
possess such judicial powers. This conflict has been resolved with the notion that these
administrative authorities basically exercise supervisory jurisdiction in its use of judicial or
quasi-judicial powers. Furthermore, the use of powers cannot be abused as it is regulated by
the Principles of Fair hearing or the common law doctrine of natural justice that consists of
two maxims: Nemo judex in causa sua (a man may not be a judge in his own case) and audi
alteram patem (hear the other side).
It should be noted that administrative adjudication is recognized under S. 36 of the 1999
constitution (Right to fair hearing) evidenced by the use of the word “tribunals”. As stated by
the Court in Obi v Mbakwe, administrative adjudication was conceived in order to ensure a
smooth running of the administrative machinery by allowing agents of the executive to
determine the rights of people in accordance with certain laws that might be made from time
to time.
Administrative adjudication may however differ from the courts in the sense of informality
and not being rigidly bound by precedents. There is also the feature of not being occupied
with procedural technicalities. However, just as a court of law, an administrative adjudication
body must be competent and have jurisdiction for the proceedings before it for its decision to
be valid.
2
The definition of an administrative tribunal has been deemed to be a difficult process as these
tribunals share many characteristics with regular courts. Thus, it is often better for its
characteristics to be discussed. Some of these characteristics include the ability to make final
and legally enforceable decisions, independence from any department of government, the
holding of public hearing, the possession of expertise, judicial nature, the provision of appeal
to the High court on point of law. Some of these tribunals include: Election Petition
Tribunals, Code of Conduct Tribunal, Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, Medical and
Dental Disciplinary Committee, etc.
Justification for Administrative adjudication
1. It is cheaper: Administrative adjudication is cheaper both from the litigant’s point of
view and from the governments or administrative body establishing it. It is usually ad-
hoc and constituted when needed as compared to regular courts which are large and
require a lot of money and facilities to maintain.
2. It is faster: Administrative adjudication process is needed for dealing with matters
expressly without delay and need for adjournments. They are tribunals required to
decide on cases within a limited time frame. For e.g. election tribunals are supposed
to hear and discharge cases in order to allow the new government settle down.
3. Matters are heard by relevant experts: Tribunals entertain cases that require
technical expertise which is not so in regular cases. The tribunal judges usually sit
with such persons as assessors that have the requisite technical know-how of the
issues brought before it.
4. Aids in the implementation of government policies: Administrative agencies aid the
government in the implementation of social, economic and political objectives. This is
done when a panel submits its report, the government can look into the areas where
changes and restructuring are needed thereby implementing its wishes. This is not so
of regular courts which as a result of its doctrine of judicial precedent, such
innovations are impeded.
5. There is informality in its procedure: Administrative tribunals are usually informal
in its proceedings devoid of the strict rules of the regular courts. It does not have the
formalities of regular courts such as the elaborate dressing of barristers. The ideal goal
is fact finding and ensuring justice. In its proceedings, it guarantees that the average
person feels at home when performing his expected role either as a party or witness.
Criticisms of Administrative adjudication
1. There is the lack of legal knowledge: The members of tribunals usually lack fact
finding abilities and general knowledge of law. This is because most members of
tribunals are assessors although the chairman is usually a lawyer, trained in law.
2. Loyalty to the government: The members of administrative tribunals are usually
formed by the government and as such they usually carry out their proceedings in
conformity with the wishes of the government. Such a system is impossible for fair
hearing. Consequently, persons brought before these tribunals are regarded as casualty
figures as they are usually convicted quickly in order to appease the government. It
should be noted that the quality of justice depends on the quality of persons
administering justice as well as the law being administered. Thus, where the persons

3
 administering justice are faulty, no matter the quality of the judicial system, it will
function poorly.
3. Lack of observance of legal procedure: Tribunals are not bound by judicial
precedent and as such they reach certain decisions without sufficient grounds.
4. Secrecy in sittings: The trials of tribunals are usually in secret. Denying journalist
and interested members of the public access. The atmosphere of the tribunal is one
which denies the parties of their rights and does not follow the due process of law.
Thus, when the tribunals give judgments, it is usually viewed by society as unjust.
5. Application of martial or draconian laws: The laws establishing tribunals are
usually willingly or unwillingly designed in a draconian manner. The laws are usually
retroactive or better put, designed in such a manner as to ensure the conviction of the
accused. Thus, the mere mention of the word “tribunal” creates hate and fear in the
minds of people. This fear is usually genuine in the light of the fact that tribunals have
been known to be used as instruments of government (especially the military) in
perverting the cause of justice.
6. Inadequate opportunity for self-defence: tribunals have been known for denying
people their right to life, property and careers as well. Decisions of tribunals affecting
the lives, property and future of persons have been reached without full hearing or no
hearing whatsoever. Thus, the accused’s counsel is usually given no time to prepare a
defence. Consequently, he may abandon his client who lacks knowledge of legal
procedure. At the mercy of the tribunal, such a person may lose his property, career or
even life as such tribunals is usually quick to do the bidding of the government.
Control of Administrative adjudication
1. Constitutional control
S. 6(1) and (6)(b) confer judicial power on the courts which include the power of judicial
review of the exercise of executive and administrative powers. There is also the principle of
fair hearing provided for by S. 36(1) of the 1999 constitution which has been interpreted by
the courts to control administrative adjudication. This has been held to be the most effective
check on administrative adjudication in Nigeria.
2. Judicial Control: Fair Hearing
Fair hearing under S. 36(1) of the 1999 constitution has been interpreted to encompass the
principles of natural justice being audi alteram patem and Nemo judex in causa sua. S. 7 of
the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act
contains similar fair hearing provisions which have been held by the courts to be enforceable
in Nigeria. The ingredients of fair hearing must be present in any administrative adjudication
proceedings involving the determination of the civil rights and obligations of any citizen
include the following:
1. There must be an identifiable person or body of persons empowered and capable of
going into the issues in dispute;
2. The person to be adversely affected must be afforded the opportunity to:
a. Know the case against him
b. Make representation by himself or through someone else on his behalf
c. Be present at the hearing or enquiry, if he likes

4
 d. Effectively prepare his defence and answer the charge against him
In the case of Garba v University of Maiduguri, the Court held that the principles of natural
justice were not adhered to as the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of fair hearing
since they did not know the evidence given against them. In the case of Egwu v Uniport also
where a student was dismissed from the defendant school for examination malpractice
without being invited to appear before any panel, the court held that there had been no
application of the rules of natural justice.
The Right to confront and cross-examine the accusers is also associated with the principles of
natural justice. Thus, evidence must not be hidden from the accused person. There is also the
right to counsel.