TOPIC 4: PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE Natural justice implies the sense of fairness, equity and equality as based on common

sense. Natural justice in this sense does not suggest that the principles relate to justice found in nature; it rather suggests that they are principles which must be naturally associated with the concept of justice, whether they are incorporated in law or not. Basically, these are principles which are necessary for a just and fair decision making. These principles are often embedded in the rules of procedure which govern the judiciary. During the earlier days the expression natural Justice was often used interchangeably with the expression natural Law, but in the recent times a restricted meaning has been given to describe certain rules of Judicial Procedure The principles of natural justice have evolved over centuries. TRADITIONAL ENGLISH LAW:The traditional English law recognizes two principles of natural justice. These are; Nemo Judex In Causa Sua No man shall be a judge in his own case and Audi Alteram Partem: hear to other side However, from these basic elements, today they have come to include a number of principles that guide judicial procedures such as; i. The right to be given information (notice) ii. The right to be represented in legal proceedings iii. The right to be given reason for the decision Principle 1: A. RULE AGAINST BIAS (Nemo Judex Causa Sua-or no man can be a judge of his own cause). Bias refers to operative prejudice against the party or matter in question (be it conscious or accidental). No one should be a judge in his own cause Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The principle requires that a judge/or administrative authority exercising adjudicatory powers should not only be impartial, but should also be in a position to apply his mind objectively to the dispute before him on the basis of evidence on record The administrator exercising adjudicatory powers must not have any personal or proprietary interest in the outcome of the proceedings. There must be real likelihood of bias (actual bias or a reasonable suspicion of bias) for every decision not easy to act without bias. The rule is applicable to both decisions, which have been made (invalidation) and decisions, which are to be made (disqualification) if it can be justified that the decision maker has interest in the question in the case. Types of bias Personal Bias-relationship between deciding authority and party Pecuniary Bias-financial interest in the outcome of the matter

 Subject-matter bias-the deciding officer is directly, indirectly engaged in the subject matter of the case. Departmental bias-institutional/department belonging, deciding officer is part of the department against which the charges are brought. c. Pre-conceived notion bias Generally based on what the decision maker knows or from person experiences and not the facts and evidences that are available and directly related to the case in question. Bias arising out of preconceived notions is a very delicate problem of administrative law. On one hand, no judge as a human being is expected to sit as a blank sheet of paper; on the other hand, preconceived notions would vitiate a fair trial. [23] However, the problem of bias arising from preconceived notions may have to be disposed of as an inherent limitation of the administrative process. Tests of personal bias The reasonable suspicion test of bias=based on the outward appearance The real likelihood test= courts own evaluation of possibilities B. The Rule of Fair Hearing (Audi Alteram Partem) No decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing Right to be given notice Right to present case and evidence Right to cross examination Right to legal representation Disclosure of evidence to party Report of enquiry to be shown to the other party Reasoned decisions or speaking orders Peter Cane (2011: 73), FAIR HEARING requires notification of the date, time, and place of hearing. Notification must be in more or less detail of the case, adequate time to prepare ones case in answer, and access to all material relevant to ones case. It also demand the right to present ones case orally or in writing or both, the right to examine and cross-examine witness (including ones opponent), and the right to be represented (perhaps by a qualified lawyer). It further demands that the decision should be sorely based on the material that has been available to (and so answerable by the parties); the decision should be accompanied by reason (reasoned decision). More important, the rule requires that written evidences only cannot be enough to condemn a person. So there should be both written and oral evidences and the party to which charges are held against be given the opportunity for defense

Where they may not apply However, when an employee is suspended pending an enquiry into whether disciplinary action should be taken, the principles of natural justice may not apply I must make it clear that these principles do not apply to legislative decisionmaking although it may affect the rights of citizens. Legislatures do not have to hear the persons whose rights are affected. This is under a belief that different view points are represented by the legislators in Parliament since the legislators represent the people. There are, however, areas where the power of legislation is delegated to subordinate authorities, usually to the executive. Is it necessary to hear the persons affected before such subordinate legislation is framed? This is a grey area where any clear judicial authority is absent. Let us therefore come back to the decision-making process of quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. Natural Justice requires that the person who is likely to be affected by the decision must be heard before a decision is given. The hearing may be oral or it can be through a written representation.

the decision taken to suspend the employee was not unfair as it was compliant with internal rules and procedures, and so provides guidance on how to avoid breach of fair procedures when considering suspension of an employee. Having an internal disciplinary procedure which provides for suspension of an employee is paramount as the company then are merely utilising the procedures they have made the employees aware of the investigation should be carried out to establish the facts and whether disciplinary action should be taken, this should not be determined before the disciplinary has been held.

Similarly, in Deegan v Minister for Finance (2000), civil servants in the Department of Finance claimed that the decision to suspend them following the detection of financial irregularities was in breach of fair procedures and of their rights. The Supreme Court held that where suspension constitutes a disciplinary sanction, the principles of natural justice should be considered, before a decision is made to suspend an employee.