LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fair Hearing — Right to Fair Trial — Effect of Consent to Irregular Procedure
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The appellant's right to fair hearing was not infringed since his counsel, who consented to the irregularity, had the opportunity to cross-examine additional witnesses and no desire was expressed to call any witness to rebut additional evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwais, CJN, in Orisakwe v. State (2004) NLC-2352002(SC) at p. 22; Paras D–F.
"The appellant's right to fair hearing was not infringed since his counsel, who consented to the irregularity, had the opportunity to cross-examine the additional witnesses and no desire had been expressed or denied, for the accused to call any witness to rebut the additional evidence called by the trial Chief Judge."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Consent to irregular procedure by counsel waives any later complaint of unfair hearing. Opportunity to cross-examine and call rebuttal witnesses preserves fair hearing. The principle applies to constitutional fair hearing rights. The rule prevents parties from consenting to procedure and later complaining. Actual prejudice must be shown, not mere procedural deviation. Counsel’s consent binds the party.
