Fair Hearing in Nigerian Jurisprudence through the Lens of Garba v University of Maiduguri

Introduction

Every jurisdiction has a few court decisions that shape how fundamental rights are understood and protected. In Nigeria, one of such landmark cases is Garba v University of Maiduguri. The judgment, delivered by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, affirmed the supremacy of the Constitution in protecting the right to fair hearing, even in matters that university authorities considered “internal discipline.”

This case is famous not just because students were reinstated after expulsion, but because it clarified that administrative powers must always be exercised within the bounds of constitutional justice. In other words, fair hearing is not optional, it is compulsory, no matter the forum.

Facts of the Case

In 1983, the University of Maiduguri, located in Borno State, experienced a violent student riot that led to the destruction of school buildings and private property, including that of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. In response, the university authorities set up a disciplinary panel. Several students, including the appellants, were identified as participants in the riot and were summarily expelled based on the panel’s recommendation.

The students challenged their expulsion. They argued that the panel denied them basic rights of defence as they could not cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, or challenge reports relied on by the panel. Most significantly, the chairman of the panel was the Deputy Vice-Chancellor whose property had been damaged, raising obvious concerns of bias.

Issues Before the Court

The case reached the Supreme Court, which had to resolve four main questions:

Whether the courts had jurisdiction to intervene in the dispute.

1. Whether the courts had jurisdiction to intervene in the dispute

2. Whether the Vice-Chancellor and disciplinary panel acted within their legal 

authority.

3. Whether the procedure followed respected the constitutional right to fair hearing.

4. Whether the trial court was right in granting the remedies sought.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Court ruled in favour of the students. It held that although the University of Maiduguri Act granted disciplinary powers, those powers were quasi-judicial and had to be exercised in line with constitutional safeguards. The Court found that the disciplinary board erred by relying on the investigation panel’s report without giving the students the chance to call witnesses, cross-examine, or properly defend themselves. Their right to fair hearing under Section 33 of the 1979 Constitution was therefore breached, and the involvement of university authorities directly connected to the damage offended the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause.

Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that disciplinary matters were merely “internal,” holding that where fundamental rights are at stake, courts not only have the power but the duty to intervene. The expulsions were declared null and void, and the students were ordered to be reinstated on the same terms as their peers.

Significance of the Judgment

This case has become a cornerstone of Nigerian constitutional law for several reasons. First, it protected students’ rights, showing that university authorities are not beyond constitutional scrutiny. It gave students confidence that even in disciplinary settings, they are entitled to a fair and impartial process.

Second, it strengthened the rule of law. By insisting that constitutional rights apply everywhere, including in classrooms and campuses. The Court reminded public authorities that no one is above the Constitution.

Third, it guided administrative bodies across Nigeria. In universities, professional associations, and government agencies alike, disciplinary committees must respect the principles of fair hearing. The case thus became a reference point for tribunals and panels of inquiry.

Finally, it created a strong precedent. Nigerian courts continue to cite Garba v. University of Maiduguri as authority whenever issues of bias or denial of hearing arise. It stands alongside cases like Adigun v Attorney-General of Oyo State in affirming that fair hearing is a non-negotiable constitutional right.

Conclusion

Garba v. University of Maiduguri is rightly remembered as one of Nigeria’s great constitutional cases. It demonstrates that the right to fair hearing is not limited to courtrooms but extends to every forum where decisions affecting rights are made. By striking down the expulsion order, the Supreme Court affirmed that justice must be done and must be seen to be done.

Decades later, the case continues to guide universities, courts, and administrative bodies. It stands as a reminder that no institution, however important, is above the Constitution, and that fair hearing remains the bedrock of justice in every society.

References

1. Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550 SC. Available at: https://lawpavilion.com/blog/underscoring-the-principle-of-fair-hearing-in-garba-v-university-of-maiduguri

2.  Adigun v Attorney-General of Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678 SC. Available at: https://nigerialii.org/akn/ng/judgment/ngsc/1987/7/eng@1987-03-20

3. 1979 Nigerian Constitution. Available at: https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/nig_const_79.pdf

This article is authored by Angela Azulu, Law Student from Nigeria & Trainee of Lets Learn Law Legal Research Training Programme. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.