My Lord, You Are Biased

My Lord, You Are Biased

When a self-represented defendant in a capital case openly and repeatedly accuses the judge of bias amid a heated courtroom confrontation between them, the fair course is to adjourn, not rush the conviction of the defendant on the same day, at the same proceedings.

Adjournment comports more with the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing, particularly in a capital case, as any appearance of partiality can vitiate proceedings even if the judge subjectively believes that he is unbiased.

In capital offenses, a self-represented defendant already places the proceedings under heightened scrutiny. An open accusation of bias followed by a disruptive verbal confrontation between the judge and the defendant further compounds the problem.

Nigerian courts apply an objective test for real likelihood of bias, and that is: Would a reasonable, fair-minded person sitting in the courtroom, knowing the facts, conclude there is a real possibility that the judge cannot bring an impartial mind to the case?

A judge may reject unsubstantiated accusations of bias. However, a heated personal confrontation in open court between the judge and an unrepresented defendant can itself generate the appearance of hostility or partiality in the eyes of a reasonable observer, and appellate courts.

Trial courts have inherent powers to control proceedings before them. So, while disruptive behaviour can justify expulsion of the defendant from the courtroom, the expulsion itself degrades the authority of the court to press ahead with judgment while the atmosphere remains charged and a bias allegation is hanging on the court’s head.

Proceeding immediately to judgment in such circumstances creates a high risk that an appellate court will easily find a breach of fair hearing, an appearance of bias, or a procedural irregularity sufficient to set aside the conviction, especially given the high-stakes of a capital sentence, like life imprisonment.

The safer course is to restore order, adjourn, allow tempers to cool, and ensure any bias allegation is addressed properly and formally, with the defendant given a fair opportunity to articulate grounds and the court to rule.

Similar common-law jurisdictions (England, Canada, Australia, United States) use a closely analogous objective test for apprehended bias, and that is: Whether a fair-minded and informed observer would reasonably apprehend a real possibility of bias?

Codes of judicial conduct (for example, the U.S. Code of Conduct for United States Judges) emphasise both actual impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. In high stakes or capital-adjacent proceedings, judges are expected to manage heated exchanges without appearing to retaliate by rushing a decision.

Adjournment, cooling-off, and careful management of any bias accusation are standard best practices precisely to protect the integrity of the process and the record for any later review.

Thus, under Nigerian criminal jurisprudence and consistent common-law standards, the preferable and fairer course is to adjourn.

This preserves the court’s authority to control its proceedings, addresses the bias allegation properly, respects the heightened procedural protections that attach to capital cases, and reduces the likelihood that the entire judgment will later be declared a nullity for want of fair hearing or apparent bias.

An article written By Aloy Ejimakor