INTRODUCTION
Under the Nigerian labour jurisprudence, the right to fair hearing stands as a pillar of constitutional democracy and natural justice. Enshrined in Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), it guarantees that:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such a manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”
This provision, rooted in the twin pillars of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause), transcends mere procedural formality. It embodies the essence of justice, ensuring that no individual particularly an employee whose livelihood, reputation, and dignity are at stake suffers deprivation without an opportunity to be heard.
The determination of a contract of employment, whether by termination (with notice or payment in lieu) or summary dismissal (for misconduct), frequently intersects with this fundamental right. This article holistically examines the effect of the right to fair hearing on the determination of employment contracts, distinguishing between statutory employments and master-servant relationships, while drawing on case law and relevant authorities while referencing the ILO standards and its applicability in Nigeria jurisprudence. It argues that a robust application of fair hearing principles is indispensable for equitable labour relations, rule of law, and national development urging courts, employers, and policymakers toward a more enlightened, employee-protective jurisprudence.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
The right to fair hearing is not a recent innovation but a timeless imperative of natural justice, predating even the 1999 Constitution. It finds expression in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, including disciplinary processes in employment. The Supreme Court in the case of Daramola v. F.U.T., Yola (2026) 4 NWLR (Pt. 2033) 18 emphasized the relevance of fair hearing in the determination of the right of an employee. The Court in the instant case stated that right to fair hearing does not only apply within the courtroom but also apply to any tribunal or entity that possess the responsibility of determining the rights and obligation of persons. It is a legal requirement that the principles of fair hearing be observed before an employee is dismissed or his employment terminated for disciplinary reasons.
When there is an alleged misconduct, it is pertinent to note that fair hearing should be given to whoever is the culprit of such allegation. The Supreme Court in F.M.C., Ido-Ekiti v. Alabi (2012) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1285) 411 @ Pp. 443, paras. E-F, where the Court held that once misconduct is alleged, there must be the element of fair hearing.
“In the relationship between employer and employee, there must be an allegation of a particular misconduct or wrongdoing which is disputed, and it is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the alleged misconduct that the court insist on fair hearing.”
It is pertinent to state that where an employer pleads removal for misconduct, the action cannot be justified without an adequate opportunity for the employee to explain, justify, or defend the allegation. Although arising mostly in a public employment context, it underscores a universal truth: allegations that impugn character or competence trigger constitutional safeguards.
Section 36(1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended applies to “civil rights and obligations,” a phrase broadly interpreted to encompass employment disputes, especially where determination involves disciplinary sanctions. In statutory or public employments i.e those governed by statutes, regulations, or conditions of service with a “statutory flavour”, breach of fair hearing renders the determination a nullity. The employee’s right to reinstatement, back wages, or declaratory relief flows directly from this. Conversely, in pure master-servant contracts (governed solely by common law principles), the employer’s power to hire and fire remains potent, but even here, fair hearing exerts persuasive influence where misconduct is alleged or international best practices are invoked. This dichotomy is not arbitrary but reflects the evolution of Nigerian law from colonial-era master-servant rigidity towards constitutionality.
FAIR HEARING IN STATUTORY AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENTS: THE SHIELD OF NULLITY
In employments with statutory flavour such as those in universities, parastatals, civil service, or government agencies, the contract is not merely consensual but overlaid with public law protections. Determination for misconduct or poor performance must comply strictly with enabling statutes, conditions of service, and Section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Failure to afford fair hearing vitiates the entire process, rendering the entire process void ab initio.
The Court in recent decisions confirmed public servants enjoy tenure protections and removal without fair hearing violates natural justice and the Constitution. In the case of Oloruntoba Oju v. Abdul Raheem (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83, the Court held that the procedure of termination of an appointment of an employee must comply with the principle of natural justice. The employee should be given proper notice of the complaint and also given an opportunity and reasonable time to make representation of the matter. A person’s good name is worth more than salary in lieu of notices, as stigma from untested allegations can destroy careers irreparably.
Also, in the case of Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1960) 1@ (Pp. 36-37, paras. G-F) where the Court, JSC, held:
“The doctrine of fair hearing stipulates that the employee must be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him/her and must have the opportunity to face his/her accusers. Also, the persons sitting in the investigative panel should not be the same persons as his or her accusers. Where these have not been observed, the employee cannot be said to have been afforded fair hearing before the dismissal, therefore rendering the dismissal wrongful”.
This judicial decision persuades that in protected employments, fair hearing is a condition precedent. Breach leads to automatic nullification; the employee is deemed never dismissed, entitling them to reinstatement, arrears, and costs. This doctrine deters arbitrary power, fosters accountability in public institutions, and aligns with democratic values. Employers who shortcut process invite protracted litigation, reputational damage, and judicial rebuke outcomes far costlier than compliance.
FAIR HEARING IN PRIVATE MASTER-SERVANT CONTRACTS
Private employment, governed by the common law master-servant paradigm traditionally permits termination at will with notice or payment in lieu, without reasons or hearing. The employer’s motive is irrelevant, as affirmed in Shell Pet. Dev. Co. v. Lawson-Jack (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 545) 249 @ P. 272 paras. B-C):
“In the case of ordinary master and servant where there is repudiation or breach of contract, the remedy of the parties is in damages. Thus, the aggrieved party can only clear the wrong futileness of the termination or dismissal by action for damages, but he cannot stop it happening; nor can he hope to get any other relief before or after”.
The tension is palpable. Traditional doctrine views employment as a private contract; courts will not import fair hearing unless the contract expressly provides or misconduct stigmatizes (e.g., theft, fraud). Yet, this is increasingly untenable.
Critics of the strict master-servant rule contend it perpetuates inequality: employees, often the weaker party face summary ejection without recourse, fostering impunity. A persuasive counterview supported by constitutional supremacy urges that Section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution permeates all determinations affecting civil rights, including livelihood. Denial of hearing where allegations circulate publicly inflicts irremediable reputational harm, violating the spirit of the Constitution.
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONVENTION 1982
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, invoking Section 254C(1)(f) and (h) has mandated reasons and hearing even in private dismissals, as seen in cases applying international best practices. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) represent the global standard for fair termination practices. Article 4 mandates that “the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the worker’s capacity or conduct or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.” Article 7 adds a procedural safeguard which entails that no termination for reasons related to conduct or performance may occur before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made. These provisions enshrine both substantive fairness and procedural fairness, reflecting universal principles of natural justice and human dignity in the workplace.
Nigeria, though yet to ratify Convention 158, has witnessed a remarkable convergence between these ILO standards and domestic jurisprudence particularly through the expanded mandate of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) under Section 254C(1)(f) and (h) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 7(6) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. These provisions empower the NICN to apply international best practices and labour standards in employment disputes.
CONSEQUENCES, REMEDIES, AND THE PERSUASIVE IMPERATIVE
Breach of fair hearing in employment determination yields profound effects. In statutory contexts, it nullifies the act, enabling reinstatement. Damages include salary arrears, benefits, and general damages for distress. Even in private contracts, procedural lapses may sound in wrongful dismissal, attracting aggravated damages where stigma attaches.
Holistically, fair hearing mitigates workplace conflict, reduces litigation and enhances employee morale. Nationally, it promotes industrial harmony, attracts investment through rule-of-law credentials, and upholds Nigeria’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (domesticated via Cap. A9 LFN 2004).
Persuasively, the jurisprudence demands evolution. Courts should interpret Section 36 expansively, to cover private dismissals involving misconduct. Employers must embed fair hearing clauses in handbooks and policies. Such reforms would impress upon readers and stakeholders that justice is not a luxury but the bedrock of sustainable employment relations.
CONCLUSION
The right to fair hearing profoundly shapes the determination of employment contracts, transforming potential tyranny into accountable process. The Nigerian courts through its decided cases have woven a compelling narrative: procedural fairness is non-negotiable where rights hang in the balance. As practitioners and citizens, we must champion this right not merely as legal obligation, but as moral imperative ensuring that every worker’s voice is heard before their livelihood is severed. In so doing, we are honouring the provisions of the constitution, elevating labour jurisprudence, and building a Nigeria where dignity at work is inviolable. The law, after all, serves humanity; fair hearing ensures it does so justly.
