LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PROFESSIONAL ETHICS – Bias – Limits of Allegations of Bias
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
If Courts are to go by spurious allegations of bias as in this case, then no Legal Practitioner can be tried by any Court because he belongs to the same profession as the Magistrate or High Court Judge that might try him. Similarly, judicial Officers with shares in public Companies or coming from a particular state of Nigeria cannot try or hear any case involving such Companies or any of the arms of the Government of that State. I think there is a limit to which the chase of such wild goose can go. Concrete evidence of bias must be shown before the allegation can succeed.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwais, JSC (as quoted by Onu, JSC), in Secretary, Iwo Central Local Government v. Adio (2000) NLC-1431994(SC) at p. 30; Paras B–C.
"If Courts are to go by spurious allegations of bias as in this case, then no Legal Practitioner can be tried by any Court because he belongs to the same profession as the Magistrate or High Court Judge that might try him. Similarly, judicial Officers with shares in public Companies or coming from a particular state of Nigeria cannot try or hear any case involving such Companies or any of the arms of the Government of that State. I think there is a limit to which the chase of such wild goose can go. Concrete evidence of bias must be shown before the allegation can succeed."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Spurious bias allegations have limits; concrete evidence must be shown. Accepting tenuous connections (same profession, shareholdings, state origin) as bias would paralyze the judiciary. No lawyer could be tried, no judge could hear cases involving companies they partly own, or states they come from. The standard requires real likelihood, not remote or speculative connections. Bias allegations must be substantial, not frivolous. Courts will not chase “wild geese”—unsubstantiated claims. The principle protects judicial officers from strategic disqualification attempts and preserves judicial efficiency. The complainant bears the burden of producing credible evidence.