LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fundamental Rights — Fair Hearing — Right to Cross-Examine Accusers in Disciplinary Proceedings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In disciplinary proceedings involving serious allegations such as theft, the accused person must be given the chance to defend themselves and cross-examine witnesses called to prove the allegation, unless they voluntarily confess.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kalgo, JSC, in Psychiatric Hospitals Management Board v. Edosa (2001) NLC-1631995(SC) at p. 14; Paras C–E.
"The allegation of theft is a very serious allegation and before finding a person guilty of such an offence, save where the person accused voluntarily confessed to the allegation, he or she should be given a chance to make a defence and cross-examine witnesses called to prove the allegation as in this case."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Disciplinary proceedings involving criminal allegations require the right to cross-examine accusers. The right is fundamental to fair hearing. The exception is where the accused voluntarily confesses. The principle applies to employers, professional bodies, and other disciplinary tribunals. Denial of cross-examination renders the proceedings null and void. The seriousness of the allegation (e.g., theft) heightens the need for procedural safeguards. The accused must know the case against them and have the opportunity to test the evidence. The rule is rooted in natural justice and constitutional fair hearing provisions. The decision cannot stand if cross-examination was denied.
