-->
  Administrative Adjudication: Tribunal, Courts & Inquiries in Perspective

Administrative Adjudication: Tribunal, Courts & Inquiries in Perspective



Administrative Adjudication

Administrative adjudication is a name give to the administrative exercise of judicial functions. It is a name given to the various ways of deciding disputes outside the ordinary courts. Administrative adjudication is constitutional, though it is a negation of the principle of separation of powers. Thus, it is not only the courts established by section 6(1) of the 1999 CFRN (as amended) that must exercise judicial functions. This is in tandem with the provisions of section 36(1) of the 1999 CFRN on fair hearing which mandates that courts and tribunals must observe fair hearing in their determination of the civil rights and liabilities of citizens.

Administrative adjudication is usually performed through the machinery of tribunals and inquiries, which are single (example a sole commissioner as was the case in Adigun v. AG Oyo State) or body of persons recognized by the constitution as administrative bodies/authorities performing judicial functions. These bodies take decisions that affect the civil rights and obligations of the citizens. In the case of Onuoha v. Okafor; Oputa CJ defined a tribunal as a person or body of persons exercising judicial functions by common law and statute.

A tribunal is subject to:

(a)       The ordinary laws of the land;
(b)       Statute or instrument giving it jurisdiction; and
(c)       The rules of natural justice and fair hearing.

Court and Tribunal Distinguished

In order to avoid the confusion of usage, there is need to distinguish between a tribunal and a court of law.

1.             Courts are statutorily and constitutionally created; while tribunals are only statutorily created.

2.            Courts are permanent in nature, since removing them may involve an amendment of the constitution: while tribunals are usually set up on ad hoc basis and are temporary in nature.

3.            Courts  are  presided  over  by  legally  trained  personnel,  except  in  the  case  of  a  lay Magistrate; while tribunals are usually manned by lay men, except in the case of an election petition tribunal.

4.            Courts determine disputes, impose obligations and make orders; while some tribunals only make recommendations.

5.            The jurisdiction of a court is wider and its decisions are final and conclusive; whereas the jurisdiction of a tribunal is limited and its decisions subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of a High Court. A tribunal for example, cannot interpret the constitution, nor can it confer title to land.

6.            Courts are superior; while tribunals are inferior.

7.            Courts sit in open designated places, enjoy independence and  follow the doctrine of judicial precedence; while tribunals do not, except Election Petition Tribunals.

8.            Court proceedings are governed by rules of evidence, rules of court; whereas tribunals are not so bound unless the enabling statute provides so.

On the other hand, an inquiry has been defined as a well publicized inquisition on a grand scale, which may not be concerned with government policy and administration only; but for the most part, with the investigation of suspected impropriety or negligence in public life. The aim of setting up public inquiries is to satisfy the public that a proper investigation has been made into a matter about which there is a great deal of public disquiet. In Nigeria, the jurisdiction of inquiries has been extended for the purpose of embarking on any administrative policy which has serious political consequences. Inquiries have become the standard device for giving fair  hearing to objectors before the final decision is made on some questions of government policy affecting rights or interests of citizens.

Tribunals and Inquiries Distinguished

The following are the differences between inquiries and tribunals;

1.             Tribunals are more permanent than inquiries.

2.            Tribunals adjudicate independent cases of the same nature; while inquiries investigate a particular subject matter.

3.            Tribunals are set up under different statutes; while inquiries are usually set up under the same law.

4.            Tribunals’  decisions  may  be  final;  whereas  inquiries  are  usually  set  up  to  make recommendations.

5.            A tribunal may be composed of a single individual; while an inquiry is in most cases made up of a body of persons.

6.            An inquiry is highly publicized; whereas in the case of a tribunal, it is only the parties to be affected by its decision that take part in the proceedings.

7.            Legal representation of interests is often made before tribunals than inquiries.

8.            Tribunals give judicial decisions; while  inquiries are  mere preliminaries to  political decisions.

9.             Tribunals may in most cases act judicially and are mostly expected to observe the rules of natural justice; while the powers of inquiries are mostly quasi judicial.

Judicial Intervention In Inquiries

Judicial intervention in inquiries could be before, during or after. The first form of intervention is usually referred to as antecedent control or pre hearing. It takes the form of an interim injunction. An example of antecedent control can be found in Doherty v. Balewa, where the Privy Council held (prior to the exercise of power by a Commission) inter alia that the power given to the Commission under the Commissions and Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1961 passed by the Federal Parliament was null and void and beyond the constitutional powers of parliament.

The second form of intervention is that which occurs during the proceedings of the inquiry otherwise known as interlocutory control. This type of control takes the form of an interlocutory injunction, disobedience of which may lead to committal for contempt of court: State v. Justice Egundayo.

The last form of intervention or control is that called subsequent control or post hearing. Under this form of control, persons aggrieved by the decision or steps taken by the government based on the recommendations of the inquiry approach the court for a remedy or redress, usually on grounds of breach of fair hearing or natural justice.

For example, in Sikiru Adetona v. The State, Kolawole J. held that the disposition order was invalid as the government did not invite the plaintiff before the disposition order was issued. Also, in FRA Williams v. Majekodunmi, it was held that the exercise of power was an unconstitutional and unlawful exercise of delegated power. Again, in Odigwe v. Nig. Paper Mills Ltd., the appellant successfully challenged the decision of the Panel of Inquiry which dismissed him from the company on the grounds of breach of fair hearing.

At this stage, it is not out of place to draw a distinction between public inquiries in Nigeria and public inquiries in England. Though, inquiries are in most cases set up to investigate cases of impropriety in public life especially, in Britain; the jurisdiction has been extended in Nigeria for the purpose of embarking on any administrative policy which has serious political consequences; example, creation of state.

In England, public inquiry is political in nature; thus making government solely responsible for their institution to parliament. Cases seldom arise and there is no judicial intervention. In Nigeria, public inquiries are frequent and the courts are constitutionally mandated to intervene and even stop proceedings of public inquiry.

Furthermore, the intervention of the court in public inquiries in Nigeria, especially where the proceedings are stopped or the court nullifies the recommendation(s), not only makes the people feel that some state officials who incidentally are mostly concerned with these inquires are being protected by the court. Also, it gives the impression that constituting a public inquiry is a diversionary tactics used by government to shield the truth of mismanagement of administration from coming out to the people.

Moreover, the frequency of public inquires in Nigeria, show lack of grip of government of the public arm of administration as well as the inefficiency of administration. Most civil disturbances and few disasters on which inquires are set up ought to have been prevented if the government have been alive to its duties. Therefore, in Nigeria, it would not be wrong to conclude that most of them are set up to cover up administrative inefficiency or because of the inability of the executive arm of government to have a grip on administration. The court is not concerned with public policy; it is not for the court to decide what is in the public interest.
Our website contains a wealth of free, reliable legal information. Here, you'll find information about starting and legally maintaining a company, partnership, or sole proprietorship, as well as information about franchises, general business law and taxation. For more on business law, see the links on http://www.legalemperors.com.
© Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com, 2016 (All Rights Reserved). Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excepts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with appropriate and specific directions to the original content.
The post you have just read and indeed all other posts emanating from http://www.legalemperors.com contains general legal information and does not contain legal advice. http://www.legalemperors.com is not a law firm or a substitute for a lawyer or law firm. The law is complex and changes often. 
For Legal Advice, please ask a Lawyer





01:55:00  Administrative Adjudication, Administrative Law, Inquiries, Law Lecture Series, lectures, Tribunals

Share this:

Previous Next