It is imperative that a tribunal is set up to investigate matters of public importance, to hear and determine such cases under specific statute enacted for that purpose. In most cases, the judgment of the tribunals lack rationale, and such aggrieved persons will want to seek for justice by way of appeal. There must be a right of appeal from the decision of the tribunal. Although there are numerous ways of appeals from various tribunals, the general principle still applies to every one of them. It should be noted that
Various Ways of Appeal under Tribunals
a) Tribunals to the court: This is a situation where an appeal goes from tribunals to the court on the ground that the enquiries were conducted in a manner contrary to the principles of natural justice. In Alakija vs. Medical Disciplinary Committee (1959) 4 FSC, 38 the appellant appealed from a decision of the Medical Disciplinary Committee, which had ordered that the appellant‘s name be removed from the register of medical practitioners for the period of two years. The appellant averred that the inquiry was conducted in a manner contrary to principles of natural justice, who was in fact the prosecutor took part in the Disciplinary Committees deliberations. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Disciplinary Committee could not stand and was quashed.
b) Tribunals to minister or commissioner: This is a situation where the enabling statutes provide for an appeal in the first place to a minister or a commissioner as the case may be. In R vs. Director of Audit (Western Region) and Another Ex Parte Oputa & others (1961) All NLR 659, the Director of Audit of the defunct Western Region wrote to the appellant and certain other councilors to show cause why they should not be surcharged. They were given two months within which to make representations in the matter. Many of them did not reply and those who
did fail to satisfy the Director of Audit that a surcharge should not be made. They were surcharged. They appealed to the minister and they were informed that the minister did not allow their appeal. Thereafter, they appealed to court for certiorari but it was refused by the court, as no rule of natural justice was broken.
c) Tribunal to another higher tribunal: This is a situation where the statute provides for an appeal to lie from one tribunal to another higher tribunal, which is not a court in the real sense of it. A good example is that appeal lies from the decision of the Industrial Arbitration Panel to the National Industrial Court, which is not a superior court of record. In Nigerian Breweries Ltd vs. Nigerian Breweries Managements Association (1978-79) N. I. C. L. (Pt.1) pg 35, the issue was whether medical facility for managers and assistant managers was negotiable or not. There was no agreement between the parties, the Industrial Arbitration Panel awarded in favour of the workers that medical facility was negotiable. The company appealed and the National Industrial Court held that in the circumstances of the case, medical facility was not negotiable and set aside the award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel in favour of the workers.
d) Tribunal to the head of state: this is a situation where the tribunal‘s decision shall not be treated as a sentence of the tribunal until confirmed by the Head of State. This
Grounds of Appeal under Tribunals
The grounds or basis of appeal from a decision of a tribunal may be one or any of the following.
1. Ultra vires : This refers to lack of or excessive use of authorised powers. Any act in excess of powers conferred is regarded as being outside jurisdiction or ultra vires. Thus, a tribunal is only restricted to do what the law setting it up permits it to do. Where a tribunal exceeds its sphere of authority, a Court of Law will entertain appeals from its (tribunals) findings.
2. Excess/lack of jurisdiction: Where the tribunal entertains a matter without having jurisdiction, appeal will lie to the law Court that may set aside the whole judgment or part of it. Jurisdiction might be exceeded if a tribunal is wrongly constituted, where the tribunal tries a case outside its area of competence, by committing procedural errors made an order outside its competence, for instance imposition of a fine when it was empowered to impose compensation. Lack of jurisdiction robs the tribunal of its powers. The concept of jurisdiction is well laid out in Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 A NLR 587 at 589.
3. Error of law on the face of the record: Where, upon the face of the order of a tribunal, anything is shown to be erroneous, the decision of the tribunal will be subject to appeal.
4. Fraud or Collusion: Where the decision of a tribunal is obtained through fraud or collusion, such decision will be quashed by the law court on appeal. In State vs Senior Magistrate (S. A. Akaeke, Senior Magistrate Court II or the Successor) Ex parte; Alhaji Maru (1976) 6 E. C. S. L R. 221, it was held that an order of certiorari will be granted to quash proceedings tainted with fraud - - - - provided the applicant was not guilty of delay and the fraud had not become irretrievable.
5. Locus standi: Parties in a tribunal must have the locus standi to be able to file for an appeal before the court of law. Locus standi means right is the right to sue or defend a claim in law court. It is the right of a party to appear in a court, tribunal or other judicial proceedings and be heard on matter before it. Mohammed Bello JSC, as he then was in Senator Abraham Adesanya vs. President of Nigeria (1981) 2 NCLR 358 at 380 defined locus standi as: ―The right of a party to appear and be heard on the question before the court or tribunal‖ (See also the case of Owodunni V. Regd. Trustees of C. C. C. (2000) 10 NWLR pt 675, p. 293 S.C.)
6. Breach of the rules of fair hearing: The provision of section 36 of the 1999 Constitution on fair hearing is sacrosanct for anybody acting judicially or quasi-
7. Non-observance of the principles of natural justice: This can be summed up as minimum standards of fair decision making imposed by law on tribunals. It is necessary for anybody acting judicially or quasi judicially. Strict adherence must be placed on principle of natural justice or else the decision of such tribunal will be set aside on appeal. The decisions of most tribunal are nullified based on the ground of nonobservance of principles of natural justice. Consider the dictum of Kayode Eso, JSC in Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal vs. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.7) 30 at p. 347: It is not easy to place a tribunal in the compartments of purely administering predominantly administering or one with judicial or quasi-judicial function. In my view, a purely administrative tribunal may turn judicial once it embarks on judicial or quasi-judicial adventure. The test to my mind should be the function the tribunal performs at a particular time. During the period in-course into judicial or quasi-judicial function, an administrative body must be bound in process thereof to observe the principles that govern exercise of judicial function…
Principles of Natural Justice
This presupposes the principles of justice, equality, fairness, which impose obligation on person who have power to make decisions affecting other people to act fairly, in good faith and without bias. It is a doctrine of variable contents. Though it is of common law origin, its application in Nigeria has always been on constitutional provision. The doctrine has metamorphosed into two maxims: audi alteram partem and nemo judex in Causa sua.
Audi Alteram Partem
This means that a person shall not be condemned unheard. It is a Latin expression, which means, ―Hear the other party‖. This principle is now established by chain of authorities. In the case of Mayor of Westminster vs London & North Western Railway Co. (1905) A C 426 at 430, Lord Macnaghten said, ―A public body invested with statutory power must take care to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep within limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith, and it must act reasonably.‖ Similarly, Eso JSC in Adigun vs. A.G. Oyo State & Anr (1987) 18 N.S.C.C. (pt 1) 346 put it this way: ―Natural justice demands that a party must be heard before the case against him is determined. Even God gave Adam an oral hearing on his nakedness, before the case against his continued stay in the Garden of Eden was determined against him‖ Other decision on this includes, Wilson vs. A. G. Bendel State (1982) 2 NWLR pt 106, p.265 SC
This is the second leg of the principle of natural justice meaning, ―no one should be a judge in his own cause.‖ In essence, no one should be both the accuser and the judge, in a matter in which he has interest or is a party, it is a rule of impartiality or likelihood of bias. Where a matter is before a tribunal, the person who has interest in such matter must not take part in the deliberations, or else, such decision will be invalid for likelihood of bias. See Mohammed vs. Kano N. A. (1968) I All NLR 424, Fawehinmi vs. LPDC (1983) 3NCLR 719. Alakija vs. Medical Disciplinary Committee (1959) 4 F. S. C. 38. See also, the dictum of Blackburn J. in R V. Rand (1866) L R I CP 230 at 232.
PUBLIC COMPLAINTS
COMMISSION/OMBUDSMAN
The Public Complaints Commission as it is known in Nigeria is better known as the ombudsman all over the world. The institution started as a device to meet a situation of emergency but later developed into an internationally acceptable political institution for the redress of grievances. An ombudsman (or Public Complaints Commission) is an independent and non-partisan public agency that receives and investigates complaints from members of the public and makes contacts with the alleged wrongdoer to peacefully resolve and obtain remedy for the complaint. An ombudsman remedy system is usually in form of arbitration, which is an alternative to court action.
The Reason for Establishing an Ombudsman
The Public Complaints Commission is an ombudsman remedy mechanism adopted worldwide for a number of reasons, namely:
i) Abuse of power by public authorities and private bodies and the inadequate control of these bodies especially in specific cases.
ii) The inadequacy of the remedies put in place by the three arms of government, to wit, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
i) The need to make persons or body who are aggrieved by official conduct to be aware that a commission is on ground to receive complaint.
ii) The obvious inadequacies of available internal administrative remedy system or check devices to handle and fairly deal with complaints of aggrieved parties.
iii) The general belief that litigation is often slow, complex, costly and strange to the ordinary man.
The essence of a specialised court system, where minor claims and relatively insignificant issues and grievances can be heard and speedily determined between parties vii) The fact that the Public Complaints Commission remedy system affords a cheaper and easier method of getting issues sorted out between parties without the expense of legal proceedings.
viii) The essential need to ensure the full protection of the civil rights and liberties of the people as enshrined in the constitution.
All these factors combine to complicate the situation and work hardship on members of the public, thereby giving the establishment of an efficient public complaints commission remedy system a necessity in a modern society.
The Establishment of Ombudsman in Nigeria under a Military Administration The duty of an ombudsman is to investigate and report to the legislature, the complaint by the citizens against the government or officers of the state. The ombudsman is by no means a super-administrator empowered to overturn every error and to produce correct answers to all the difficult questions that confront modern government. He exists to protect the ordinary citizen from undue influence, negligence or maladministration by government officials and staff of parastatals organisation. According to the Public Complaints Commission Decree 31, 1975, on 16th October 1975, the Public Complaint Commission consists of a chief commissioner and 12 other commissioners invested with power to investigate either on its own initiative or on complaint from administrative action by federal or state agencies, statutory corporations, local government authorities and public institution, and companies whether in the public or private sector. In 1979, Public Complaints Commission (Amendment) Decree 21 was promulgated, it made several amendments to the Public Complaints Commission Decree 31 of 1975. Among other things, it conferred immunity from legal process on the public complaints commissioners in the performance of their official duties.
CONCLUSION
An attempt has been made to trace the history of ombudsman with reference to the Public Complaints Commission. The main objectives of the commission include keeping a balance between the citizen and the government official and staff or parastatals and, to ensure justice among ordinary citizens. It is also noteworthy that the Public Complaints Commission is an advisory body. It will make citizens grow conscious of their rights and will be able to ask for them as citizens do in more developed countries.
Another point to note is that indiscipline is the main cause of almost all the ills in Nigeria society. Indiscipline breeds inefficiency, corruption and maladministration. In addition, the commission is to cure indiscipline in the society. The commission is an expression of democratic practice and the rule of law in Nigeria being a special
SUMMARY
An ombudsman is an independent and non- partisan public agency that receives and investigates complaints among members of the public, attempts to resolve the controversy peacefully and obtain remedy for the aggrieved party as appropriate. An ombudsman remedy systems is a type of arbitration and is an alternative to court action. The Public Complaints Commission is the official ombudsman in Nigeria. You also saw that an ombudsman uses alternative dispute resolution skills such as arbitration, mediation and conciliation skills to effect settlement and result. The Public Complaint Commission was established by the Public Complaint Commission Act, 1975. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, Section 315(5) provides that this Act shall not be altered or repealed except in accordance with provisions of Section 9(2) of the constitution. The Public Complaint Commission Act is one of the enactments so protected. A reason for the establishment of the Public Complaint Commission was discussed. So also were its duties and powers.
