foreign we shall attempt to solve one essay question on natural Justice and the question reads as follows and I quote what would a reasonable litigants think if he gets to hear of matters such as have been alleged in this motion for example that there is intimate relationship between his opponents and the judge presiding over their case there's no doubt that he will without the slightest hesitation from the impression that his case would not be given an unbiased hearing and of course descending opinion of celebrity in the case of Attorney General Professor Salah discuss so this is a question of natural Justice clearly remember before you begin to solve you must make sure you understand the question have a very good introduction and remember what we always say you tell the examiner what you are going to say you say it and then you tell the examiner what you have said but it is good even though no mandatory in your introduction that you structure your answer into various parts so that as you are writing you can referring to the introduction to even guide you as to what you are supposed to add in that here is the question of natural Justice we have been told to discuss let's see what we can have for our introduction this question raises for discussion the principle of natural Justice with specific emphasis on the game of judex in courses were which means that a judge must not be a judge in his own course in this essay I shall explain the name of that through me and how it has been applied in Ghana the second part of this essay shall rule out the material facts of attaining general and Salah and indicate how its Vision relates to the principle of Nemo judex in Kosar more specifically in this part I shall indicate how the case of attending General in Salah has laid down the tests that has to be satisfied by a person improving bias of a judge the third part will interrogate exceptions to the applicability of the principle in Ghana the fourth and final Parts shall then conclude the discussion now why do we have an introduction like this we have an introduction like this because the question is a quote from a particular case so we must not only demonstrate that we understand the principle in that case but you must also demonstrate that with no how the case came about that particular principle and remember that was even a decentral opinion so you must analyze the statements with sufficient clarity so that we also have control over the case they will discuss the principles that the case helps us understand so in the first part we shall explain the new model that's quote on her bedroom second part we shall rule out the material facts of maternity and then indicate how the principle relates to the ratio relates to the principle of new modules then more specifically in this part we shall indicate how the case of assignment is Allah have laid down the test that has got satisfied by a person proving a bias of a judge in the third part we then interrogate the exceptions to the applicability of the principle in Ghana then the fourth and final Parts have been conclude the discussion so there can be a good structure and we can begin to write to start with the new Judas explain that a decision maker should not have a relational peculinary or financial interests in the subject matter of disputes otherwise the actions shall be invalidated relational interest is well for instance the decision maker is a relative of a party to the disputes where particular financial interest arises where the decision maker has a monetary claim in the southern part of the disputes in any of these situations the decision maker is compelled under law to do The Honorable Thing by recusing himself and not participating in the resolution of the district this has been affirmed in the case of expertise the first remember it's a legal people when you make your statements you must support them with relevant Authority where applicable so having this part try to explain what you mean by Nemo to do that in court as well that you must not have any relational personally or financial interest and if you do have do the honorable Thing by recusing so I shall proceed likewise a decision maker who has four knowledge of The Facts of the case or to recuse him or himself so as not to create in the minds of reasonable men that he was by us this has been affirmed in the case of Kwame versus queeno what is important to note is that the courts have in the Litany of cases held that a mere allegation of bias will not suffice and that the test of bias is a real livelihood of us and not a mere suspicion let's go back to our introduction and see whether on track so in the first part of this essay we shall explain foreign we shall explain the name of Judas in quarters and how has been applied in Ghana the second part of the essay is where we shall interrogate the material fast or that particular case and how they wish you so let's go back and see whether they're on track so we are done with the first Parts over here explaining what me module that's in college wise now let's concern with this part what is important to notice that the courts have in the literally of cases held that a mere and against the bias will not suffice and that the test of bars is a real livelihood of bias and not immense especially in a terminal versus Salah expert environment the courts help that the test is an objective one and not a subjective one let's even read this Bible the person I'm objective one and not a subjective one that is whether a reasonable person sees with all the facts will conclude that the decision maker is biased they need not be actual buyers but they must be a real likelihood of bias in the case of attorney general in summer because held that the owners of establishing this real life to the bias is on the person emerging the bias so now we are going to the facts of the keys because remember we said that in our second part we shall rule out the material facts and indicate how the ratio relates to the principle of pneumonia that's in xhosa so we are now about to rule out the fact about engineering which is the case in our question no quotes justices were said to have a relational interest in the seller and attention in other words there was an area please now somebody's saying that the judges had a relational interest in some of the people in the case is said to have a relational interest in this case Apollo was said to be an intimate friend of Salah it was alleged that at times Salah would Reserve rules for purchase and that's the two on seven occasions were helped to be speaking in a strain language and in very familiar to it was said that his brother-in-law was part of the category of public offices whose appointments have been terminated by the provisions of section 9-1 of the transitional provisions on the 1969 Constitution and that this is notwithstanding he had on behalf of his in-law and his sister spoken to a higher authority so I was in Logan stated let me just give a bottom of these were the facts that culminated in the salon Attorney General Northeast the Court held that a suspicion of buyers would not suffice as a real likelihood of US unless proved by the party alleging the likelihood of bias again the quartile that a suspicion of bias would not suffice as a real likelihood of bias unless proved by the party alleging the life of the bias in other words if you are merely suspecting that the God is going to buy us it will not be enough but what is relevant is that there must be a real nightlood of bias for the course the test is I'm getting one that is whether a reasonable Observer from the fact of the case will conclude that there was a real likelihood of bias so you see over here it is clear that somebody's allergic that somebody's had a relational interest with some parties in the case the court is saying that merely suspecting bias will not be enough that why you must prove will have to be a real likelihood or by us we shall proceed within this context it is important to discuss the case of EX party at this in which case the Court held that the test of more likelihood of us have been met and therefore prohibited a judge from hearing the case this is because of Judge before whom a contempt application was pending which related to the rightful person to the president of the traditional Council accepted an invitation to attend a meeting of the I'm not traditional Council which was called by one of the interested parties to the suits who was also claiming to be the acting president on the I'm not traditional Council what is happening the Dutch that is here in the matter and it's about a it's a Content application and the content application is connected to who is supposed to be the rightful person to be president of the I'm not traditional Council and then you're the judge that you are here in this content application that is related to the who is supposed to be the rightful person then someone invites you to a meeting out of Courts where you are supposed to go and discuss issues pertaining to how to resolve this issue and the judge who is here in the matter of course you've accepted the invitation to go for this meeting now let's continue even though the job left the meeting Hall before the proceedings commenced the Supreme Court in examining the entire fact of the case attached that's a really likelihood of that has been established and therefore prohibited the job from hearing the case and it is good to bring this case away because there was a mere allegation of bias there was mere suspicion there was no room light to the bus so the judges were not removed from the case so it's good to contrast that with this case of expertise in which case the Court held that whenever I transcribed raises a real likelihood of bias and therefore the judge ought to be prohibited from here in the case and given to a different judge so let's go back to our introduction in the first part we said we shall explain the name of Judas in quarters to our room and has been applied in Ghana I think we've been able to explain it because we've not explain what it means and things like that second part shall rule out the material photos and indicates how its Vision relates to the principle of Nemo dudex in Kota so I think we've been able to do that because we've explained the facts how some of the journalists were being alleged to have been speaking in a very familiar tool and things like that but in all of us when they can see that that will not be sufficient to pull bias and that what you must prove has to be a real lifehood of bias a non-million suspicion has laid on the tests that has been satisfied by a present proven buyers of a judge I think we've dealt with that because we mentioned that the person must move a real night to the bias and loan me a suspicion third Parts what did we see third facts we shall interrogate the exceptions to the applicability of the principle in Ghana so now let's go to the third parts having explained the principle of Limu that Judas was it is important to now discuss the deceptions to this rule three main exceptions have been identified the performance of attitude Duty necessity and acquiescence each of these will be beautiful impacts so we are going to look at these three exceptions Duty necessity and then appraisers so first is where the decision maker is under a statute Duty the principle is that where it starts or the Constitution imposes a duty on the decision maker then the rule will not apply to compel such decision maker to recuse him or herself for instance under the 1992 Constitution the partial direction of permanent that is of the Supreme Courts is the reserve of the Chief Justice in that regard it will be wrong for a little gun to accept that because for an instance his or a case is again the Chief Justice the Chief Justice ought not to empower their justices as held in the cases of chicata versus the Chief Justice and attorney general as well as Attorney General let me explain this before I read further if I started somebody has the responsibility of performing an obligation the rule is that you must perform that obligation by omitting the requirements of the statutes will not prevent him from performing the statutory obligation in other words if you have sued the Chief Justice For example it doesn't mean that if you still achieve Justice then even though the conversation gave the Chief Justice the statutory duty to unpano you see the CJ cannot enter no the CD can still go ahead and empowerment and that's what happened in these cases that I've mentioned Chicago versus CG and attorney general to read in the case of Chicago versus the Chief Justice entertainment General the plaintiff instituted an action in the Supreme Court challenging among others certain actions taken by the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana the plaintiff bearing in mind the power of the Chief Justice to empower the justices of the Supreme Court pursuant to article one two five plus four objected to the empowerment of the banks by the Chief Justice the reason for this objection was that the very actions that were being challenged related to the actions taken by the Chief Justice and are saying the Chief Justice was a party to the action it would be in Bridge of the rules of natural gases for a party to the action to decide which persons would preside over the keys Frank understand the basis of this objection that I have shielded the Chief Justice and you are the one going to important people that you know who come and Rule your fever that is why that was animated The View but according to dismissing this objection reason that the power of the Chief Justice to empower the bench was a constitutional Duty on faith by article 125 plus 4 of The Constitution further the only time that the chief justice is prevented from performing his functions I start out and that took one for the system of six is when it is found that the chief justice is unable to perform the functions of his office the courts therefore held that to the extent that the power to empanadas was a constitutional Duty conferred on the Chief Justice another Constitution now the rights cannot be taken away by relying on the rules of natural Justice also on the strength of what's going on foreign insofar as the city is a Wonder must perform a statutory due to a panel your mere allegation of bias will not take away their power the CD was still going it says opposite at this point to point out that the decision of the Supreme Courts is consistent with its previous decisions and finally presidents in the case of akufadoo versus in which case it was held at West statutes and joins a person to perform an Arts that person must perform the acts even if its performance conflicts with the rules of natural Justice if a CJ is supposed to perform an acts of empanadly he must perform it even if his performance is going to conflict with the rules of natural Justice so you've dealt with the first exception the second exception is under the circumstances of necessity where necessity requires the principle of memo dudes in codasua will be overshadowed most withstanding that's returning the fact that a god may have an interest in the case a classical instance is the case of Wilson versus the palm in this case the plaintiff conveys an action against the Chief Justice at the Supreme Court seeking a declaration to quash the Judgment of the court of appeals sitting at the Supreme Courts in the case of two foreign carefully the basis of the action was that in the estimation of the plaintiff the five judges who constituted the courts in the case of two four and attorney general did not constitutionally hold nominations to sit in the substitute says Mr Apollo the very person who empanad the courts did not have the power to do so and therefore it was wrong for the goddess to have accepted the empowerment by the Chief Justice to determine the case when the case came on for hearing the plaintiff objected to the composition of the Supreme Court arguing that two of the members should not be allowed to sit because they had also served as members of the court of appeal in the cable Attorney General it makes me what is happening I wish you the right to challenge whatever transpired into one Attorney General that the peoples as in that case issued those fresh fruits the new kids that is before the courts two of the daddies who were in their own case that I'm challenging I was in this new one it was sin against the rules of natural Justice for those who get this to be allowed to sit in their own course you get it if it's your mean that means that I'm moving to an engine why should they come and sit over here it will be an iPhone to the use of natural Justice the court in dismissing the objection reason that if the objection of the plaintiff is appealed its effects would be to reduce the total number of justices capable of hearing the mother to four justices again the caught in dismissing the objection reason that is the objection of the plaintiff is appealed its effects will be to reduce the total number of judges capable of hearing the mother to four justices which would have been below the required number of five justices that can set as justices to hear a case in other words if you are approved objection we are not going to even have a bench to be any matter so we'll continue as follows in other words if the objection of the plaintiff is appealed there will be no enough justices to constitute the bench to hear the case and therefore there would have been a failure of Justice the Supreme Court therefore adjust that on the grounds of necessities and in order to prevent a failure of Justice the two justices against whom by us have been alleged against were allowed to sit as justices over the matter even though we are talking about natural Justice so it means that if you are going to apply natural Justice and it's going to result in the failure of Justice then it's our responsibility to violate the natural Justice to rather affirm and let Justice preview because you should have appealed it the people will not will maybe have a bench to me at the matter the third and final exception to be discussed which was also mentioned in the building and apologies is acquiescence the idea is that the principle of the principle against bias may be raised by a party if after being aware of the facts such a party fails to reach any objection in relation to sin in other words if you have an objection and you know this that has the tendency of being biased because of Any facts that you know of you cannot wait for the kid to travel for 10 years and last day one is about to give that mate you say you have an objection you must read the objection time yourself that's not the first come to your attention and if you go to raise it they begin to have acquiesce and wave and slept on your right to now objects so you've done to the third part now let's go back to introduction headparts will interrogate the exceptions to the applicability of the principle in Ghana the fourth and final parts are conclude the discussion okay so you can go to the final part in conclusion I have in The Following part of demonstrated the scope and applicability of the new modulus in collateral room the evidential building that must be satisfied the evidence of Burden that must be satisfied by the person allergic by us interceptions to the concepts in Ghana so what we've done so far in this essay that we give an introduction a strong introduction we told them what we're about to see they are about to discussed the new mode leaders in college who said it by saying with the new modules in others who are rulers showing how in applied in a number of cases we've shown how it's been applied in southern attendant attention in Salah it was so high was applied in esquired then we dealt with the exceptions three exceptions statutory Duty as we saw him as the agency necessity and then our Creations this is where we shall draw the curtains for this lecture thank you thank you