LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fundamental Rights — Right to Fair Hearing — Delivery of Judgment in Open Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The constitutional provision requiring judgment to be delivered in open court is all-embracing. Any law inconsistent with such provision is null and void. No excuse should advance the impression that a court could sit in camera and deliver judgment in a way that violates the tenor of the Constitution.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Pats-Acholonu, JSC, in Nuhu v. Ogele (2003) NLC-961998(SC) at pp. 11–13; Paras D–A.
"The provision of the Constitution is all embracing in its operationality and has general application and any law inconsistent with such provisions would have done violence to the spirit of the organic and primary law and therefore to the extent of such inconsistency is null and void and of no effect – see Section 1(3) of the Constitution. ... I hold that no excuse should be advanced in any form to give the impression that the court could sit in camera and be 'cabined, confined and cribbed not to saucy doubts and fears' ... but to perform an act in a way that violates the tenor and intendment of Section 33(3) of the 1979 Constitution, analogous to Section 36(3) of the present Constitution."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Judgment must be delivered in open court. The constitutional requirement is mandatory. The principle applies to all courts. Delivery in camera violates fair hearing. The rule promotes transparency and public accountability. Any judgment delivered in chambers is a nullity. The principle is fundamental.
