ADMINISTRATIVE PANELS AND TRIBUNALS OF ENQUIRIES
Tribunals is a body with either administrative or judicial (or quasijudicial) functions usually set up by government under statute outside the regular court system to investigate matters of public importance or to hear and determine matters between parties. The tribunals are also faced with some problems like every other organisation. In FCSC vs. Laoye (1989) 2NWLR Pt 106 at 652, the Supreme Court unanimously frowned at the use of tribunals instead of courts for the trial of persons, in that case, Oputa JSC said: The jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to try any allegation of crime is a radical and fundamental tenet of the Rule of law and the cornerstone of democracy. If the Executive branch is allowed to operate through tribunals and executive investigation papers, that surely will be a very dangerous development. This court cannot be a party to such dangerous innovation. It is only when one is on the receiving end that he can fully appreciate.
Adjudication
When the agency exercises its judicial function by engaging in what is sometimes called formal adjudication, it uses a process that is very much like a civil bench trial in court. These proceedings—while subject to some variation depending on whether the agency is at the federal or state level and on the precise identity of the agency and the matter being adjudicated— typically permit an oral hearing with direct–and cross–examination, testimony under oath, the development of a complete and exclusive record on which the decision is to be based, and the presence of a neutral presiding officer (known on the federal level as an administrative law judge). However, court and agency
Types of Tribunals of Enquiries
Judicial Tribunals: They perform such functions as the conventional courts, by virtue of the fact that they determine disputes and try offences as the courts.
Public Officers Tribunals: These are set up, mainly for the adjudication of erring public officers. The country has witnessed allegations of corruption in the public offices after independence. There was the establishment of Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, which would carry out investigation when there is allegation that an offence had been committed.
Land and Rent Tribunals: The Land Tribunal was set up to deal with land dispute and allocation of land. The Land Use Act 1978 vested title of land in State Governors and Allocation Committee was also set up to advice the governor of each state on any matter connected with the management and allocation of land; the settlement of persons affected by revocation of rights of occupancy and to determine dispute as to the amount of compensation payable for improvements on land. The Rent Tribunal was set up for the general rent control due to the chaotic movement of people in both urban and rural areas, accommodation and supply of other social utilities could not cope with the influx. The astronomical increase in rent and other charges became unbearable for the populace; the government had to set up Rent Tribunal to determine incessant disputes between landlords and tenants.
Industrial Relations Tribunals: They are set up to ameliorate the friction betweenemployers and employees in the industrial establishments and in the public service. As a result of this kind of problem, the Trade Disputes Act of 1971 was promulgated.
Election Petition Tribunals: These are set up to deal with issues arising from elections in 1962, but the government was taken over by the military and for several years, issues of elections and consequential petitions were shelved. When there were prospects of a return to civilian rule, another electoral Act was promulgated.
Classes of Administrative Panels and Tribunals
These are classified in to three groups: statutory tribunals; autonomous bodies and other bodies.
i) Statutory tribunals are usually set up from time to time as the need arises underspecific statutes enacted for that purpose by the federa or state government. Example of the statutory tribunals established by government includes Armed Robbery & Fire arms Tribunals; Recovery of Public Properties Tribunals; Miscellaneous Offences Tribunals, and Failed Banks & other Financial Malpractice in Banks Tribunals.
ii) Autonomous bodies are independent tribunals set up under chartered and self– governing bodies outside government establishment. They are autonomous and are usually set up by relevant professional bodies to meet their domestic regulatory needs within such profession. The autonomous bodies include Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committees; Estate Surveyors and Valuers Disciplinary Tribunal; Registered Engineers Disciplinary Committee and so on.
iii) Other Bodies which perform adjudicatory role comprise administrative authorities, which make policies, and decisions, which affect people one way or the other. These administrative authorities include the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; state governors; ministers of the federation; commissioners of the state; director general of parastatals and so forth. The functions of these public officers as provided by statute are mainly administrative. The decision taken by a public officer may affect someone who may challenge the decision, for the court to determine whether such decision was properly made in accordance with the law. Inmade vs. Inspector-General of Police (1993) in WLR PT 271 Pg. 608. The matter was dealt with in an orderly room proceeding by the police authorities. He was found innocent of the charges; the appropriate authority after considering the report instead dismissed the appellant. The appellant brought an action for wrongful dismissal and for reinstatement, payment of his salaries and entitlements. The court of appeal granted all the appellant‘s prayers held that where a police officer disobeys a police regulation or directive which amount to an allegation of crime, such officer like any other person, must first be tried in a court of law or criminal tribunal before any disciplinary action can be taken against him, in any orderly room proceedings.
Right to Fair Hearing
In connectionwith the right to fair hearing, S. 36(1) provides: In the determination of his 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 or impartiality. Fair hearing comprises so many ingredients. First, it contains the Latin maxims – audi alteram partem and nemo judex
Scope and Powers of Tribunals of Enquiries
At the early stage, only the ordinary courts are charged with the duty of adjudication both in criminal and civil matters. However, judicial tribunals are now saddled with such functions as ordinary courts do and there has been proliferation of tribunal activities in the successive military regime in Nigeria between 1966and 1999. The powers, jurisdiction and composition of tribunals of enquiries are usually specified in the statutes creating them. For instance, Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the establishment and jurisdiction of election tribunals. Administrative tribunals normally have defined jurisdictions under their statutes, which must be strictly adhered to, or else the doctrine of ultra vires may be invoked by the court against them. For instance, a statute creating professional tribunals regulates guidelines for the proceeding of such tribunals. Some statutes even provide that the rule of court should apply. It is pertinent to note that administrative tribunals of enquiries are bound by the principles of natural justice: ―Audi alteram Partem and Nemo judex in causa sua.‖ Where they take decisions in disregard of these maxims, such decisions are regarded as null. Most decisions of administrative tribunals of enquiries, which have been nullified, are based on the ground of nonconformity with principles of natural justice. See the submission of Justice Kayode Eso JSC in LPDC vs. Fawehinmi (1985) 2 in WLR (pt7) 300 at P. 347: It is not easy to place a tribunal in the compartment of purely administering predominantly
Nature of Independence of Administrative Tribunals
Independence of administrative tribunals simply connotes that tribunals make their decisions independently and are ultimately expected to be free from political influence judicial independence is recognised to be a significant factor in maintaining the credibility and legitimacy of international tribunal system and administration. One major reason for this is the unsteady political atmosphere in the country, which accounts for unsteady policies and the resultant confusion. It is a common feature for new governments to dismantle bodies set up by the previous regime on the ground of improvement, but to end by setting up other untidy bodies, that may later be equally dismantled by a secondary government. The first general observation of independence of tribunal is that it is a means to an end rather than an end itself. The goal of judicial independence is to provide objective guarantees to litigants that tribunal judges will adjudicate upon their disputes in a fair and impartial manner. Judicial characteristic and mode of conduct links tribunal independence with the process of adjudication itself rather than of the person who is doing the adjudication. There is, however, a second time of thinking in Nigeria in which tribunal independence is viewed as the foundation for a set of governance relationships that are needed to enable tribunal to carry out their statutory mandates. The purpose of independence series is to ensure that the tribunal is able to carry out its statutory mandate in a manner that has integrity.
Relationship between Independence and Accountability
Tribunals of enquiries are set up mostly as a matter of exigency and prompt dispensation of justice. The regular court is arguably slow and cumbersome in the dispensation of justice. Hence, tribunals should be accorded adjudicative independence such as are necessary to enable it function effectively. However, being substantially independent does not mean the tribunal must be completely independent in an administrative sense of the department with which it is associated; thus, the need for making them (tribunals of enquiries) accountable. Since tribunals are part of the
Authorised Tribunals: These are tribunals set up as a result of authority derived from statutes. In most cases, statutes simply authorize without providing for membership, duties, powers and procedure. These are left to the appropriate authority, in a few cases, for the minister to decide. For example, while statutes expressly name the investigating panel to make recommendations on their findings to the various Disciplinary tribunals set up for professional misconduct, the composition of the panels is not so well spelt out. This is left to each profession to decide. There are also those tribunals that are set up to recommend certain actions to the Minister or the appointing authority. Their membership and terms of reference are not determined by the statutes, but by the appointing authority.
Single-Officer Tribunals: These tribunals are constituted single officers. They are called tribunals since they perform quasi-judicial functions as other tribunals. Most times the statutes constituting these tribunals, spell out their duties, powers and procedure if any.
Basic problems of Tribunals
The basic problems of tribunals are essentially as follows.
a) Inadequate of legal knowledge and non-observance of legal procedure: The members sitting at a tribunal may lack legal training and reasoning. Where the members of a tribunal or panel are not legal practitioners, arriving at a just and fair decision according to law could be difficult, because the rules of natural justice and rule of law must be fully complied with.
b) Loyalty to government: The executive usually appoints the members adjudicating at the tribunals and they are often loyal to the authority setting up the tribunal. This leads to lack of independence and impartiality as required for natural justice and fair hearing principles.
c) There is secrecy of sittings: some tribunals usually sit in camera and without allowing members of the public watch the proceedings. This secrecy usually creates the atmosphere to deny the accused the due process of law and justice.
d) Inadequate rationale for judgment: The tribunals in most cases do not give detailed reasons for the decision reached, unlike the conventional practice in the regular courts. The rationale behind the judgment delivered by the tribunal are also not published for the general public to read, unlike the regular courts where the proceeding of a case are published in various law reports for sale to the general public for its information.
e) Fettering of the right to counsel of one‘s choice: the tribunal before which an accused is standing trial in most instances have constrained a party to choose specified counsel provided by the tribunal, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides that a person is entitled to defend himself by legal practitioners of his own choice. The choice of counsel is entirely the business of the person standing trial and not that of the tribunal.
f) To legalise government hidden agenda: a tribunal in its strict sense is a mere rubber stamp to justify and legalise the predetermined results and create a legal basis for government to deal with and get rid of preserved opposition of the government. The tribunals are often a tool to enable the authority frame any person for misconduct, carry out a kangaroo trial, and return a guilty verdict, all with the aim to provide legal
Control of Tribunals
Executive Control: These may be done in many ways such as subjecting the tribunals decision to ratification or approval by the executive council before they have the force of law, rejecting or failing to implement the tribunal‘s decision, hire or fire members of the tribunal, disband the tribunal where it serves no useful purpose, make itself the appellate body of the tribunal, tamper with tribunal‘s judgment by justice with mercy and vary or lessen the sanctions, or grant a pardon in exercise of clemency where possible.
Legislative Control: As the law making organ of the government, legislative may control the operation of tribunals by various means. This includes requiring the tribunal to follow certain procedure, amending the law and procedure on ground, enlarging its membership to secure or enhance access to justice, abolishing the tribunal or by repealing the law establishing the tribunal thereby making it defunct. By limiting the jurisdiction of the tribunal, requiring it to mandatorily observe the rules of natural justice and fair hearing in line with Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, and so on.
JUDICIAL REVIEW: Judicial review is a procedure where court can review administrative actions and decision in order to ensure that the executive complies with the provisions of the law or to ensure that justice is done. For example, the court could review a decision of the tribunal on the grounds of abuse of principles of natural justice. It is assumed that the rules of natural justice are known to almost all the systems of law and should at all times guide those who are saddled with the responsibility to discharge judicial functions. Statute authorising the exercise of certain types of powers is deemed to intend that those powers should be exercised in conformity with the rules of natural justice. The purpose of judicial review of the acts of public or administrative authorities is to ensure that the scope and limit of statutory powers are not exceeded by such authorities.
