By Gbolahan Badru
To many law students and even many lawyers, interpreting what the reasonable man is in the language of the law has always proved to be a raisin in the sun. The term itself must have grown thin and weary and even stupefied by damning explanatory garments it has been made to wear from time to time. It must be somewhere, praying indefatigably to the Heaven to give it the opportunity to talk for just 5 minutes to explain itself, in order to save itself from the uncharitable apostrophes it’s been addressed with and also save the courts, jurists and writers from the herculean task of explaining who the reasonable man is to parties, enthusiasts and readers. The legal parlance wouldn’t have wanted more than that for itself right now!
Understanding the reasonable man is very fundamental and germane to mastering the arts of legal reasoning and is the fulcrum of all discussions in legal education and studies. It also goes to the root of every judicial exercise, logic and legal philosophy. The end of law is justice and, irrevocably, learning and understanding who the reasonable man is a sure means to that end.
The case of Gbenga Daniel v. F.R.N provides every curious legal logician and philosopher a virgin ground to understanding what and who a reasonable man is.
Facts of the Case
By an information dated 2 April, 2012, the respondent brought a number of charges at the lower court against the appellant, including inter alia 13 counts, indicating that the appellant whilst being the Executive Governor of Ogun State and a Trustee of the Government of that State pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Act, with intent to defraud, converted land to some favored companies and individuals. In total, the information filed against the appellant contained 38 offences with which the appellant was charged.
On 15th October 2012, the appellant filed a motion on notice in which he sought an order of the High Court of Ogun State striking out counts 1-13 of the information filed. The motion on notice sought two other prayers made in the alternative. The first was to stay the further proceedings in respect of the said counts 1-13 pending the determination of the Appellant’s action in in suit No. M/74/2012: Otuba Gbenga Daniel and Anor v. Governor of Ogun State and 6 Ors. ; while the second prayer was for adjournment of the trial indefinitely until the determination of the said suit No. M/74/2012.
Key Issues
The ground of the motion on notice indicated inter alia that the applicant’s right to fair hearing had been and was likely to be compromised by the findings and recommendations of the Ogun State Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the land allocation, acquisition, sales and concessions of Government properties and Administration of Land Policies, Rules and Regularities between January 2004 and May 2011 and the White Paper issued by the OGSG on the findings and recommendations of the judicial Commission.
The appellant’s counsel argued that having regard to the publication in the Punch Newspaper of findings/recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the Ogun State paper thereon, the constitutional right to fair trial of the applicant in respect of counts 1-13 of the information filed against him before the lower court has been or is likely to be compromised.
It should however be noted that it wasn’t the publication in the Punch Newspaper that was the crux of the matter per se. It was the condemnatory content of the publication, judging from the STANDPOINT OF AN AVERAGE PERSON IN THE SOCIETY. It was, according to the appellant’s counsel as if the appellant had been adjudged before being arraigned without given the room to have heard.
The big question that rented the air was whether in the view of an average man in the society who saw the publication of the Commission of Inquiry Report and the White Paper of the Ogun State Government published in the Punch Newspaper would come to the view that the appellant’s right to fair hearing on counts 1-13 before the lower court had been or was likely to be compromised.
A Reasonable Man
The reasonable person is a fictional person who exercises reasonable judgement and skill. Various areas of law, such as employment law, contract law, and torts, use the reasonable person test.
Using the test of the reasonable person assists with objectivity. Without being objective, standards of behaviour may differ too greatly as what one considers ‘reasonable’ another may consider ‘unreasonable’.
The Court of Appeal as per Daniel-Kalio JCA remarked: “ There is a legal personality known as the reasonable man. He is sometimes also known as a reasonable person or reasonable citizen. His opinion is usually consulted in courts to solve legal problems. He is an ubiquitous fictional figure of law.”
For the sake of further metaphorical analogy, while a reasonable man in some English authorities is the man in the Clapman Omnibus, he is described as that man standing at Yaba Bus Stop, waiting for the next bus going to Iyana Ipaja or Ikeja.
The Supreme Court, per Kayode Eso, JSC in Adigun v. Attorney-General, Oyo State ( 1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678 at Page 720, said:
“ A reasonable person here may be a pleasant housewife shopping for meal in Sandgrouse… “ he may be the ordinary worker in Kano Native City living on his “ tuwo” or he is the plain woman in Okrika dress”.
It is what a reasonable man in the class of a particular group of people, living under the same condition, in like circumstances and in every given situation that is considered to have merited the reasonable man’s test.
From this case, the court echoed that it is what a reasonable man in the class of person indicated above thinks about the appellant’s case in the lower court while observing the proceedings before the court that will be the true test of whether or not the appellant is having a fair hearing or fair trial.
In Pan v. Muhammed (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 436) 1868., the court, while explaining who a reasonable man is, held as follows:
“ The reasonable person and the impartial observers the same. They mean a complete stranger, an unbiased person to the proceedings. A reasonable person is a person with reason, having a faculty of the mind by which he distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil. A reasonable person is a fair, proper and just and unbiased person. An impartial observer is not partial. He favors neither the plaintiff nor the defendant. He is disinterested in the matter, as he treats both the plaintiff and the defendant alike. Both the reasonable person and the impartial observer are like hypothetical legal standard for determining or judging fairness, fair play and equity. The test of the reasonable man in Nigerian court is no more then the man at Clapham junction in London but are anywhere in the Nigerian cities.
Unlike some jurisdictions, Nigeria does not use a jury system; judges are responsible for fact-finding and facts evaluation. In other to properly perform their primary duty of justice administration, the judges sit, in one hand as an officer of the law and in another as an ordinary man who is an impartial observer. The latter being the role performed by the jury in other jurisdictions. That is to say, the Nigerian judge sits to evaluate facts and attach probative value to them where necessary just as a reasonable man would do.
The test of a reasonable person in Nigerian courts is not that of a person whose minds and thoughts are coloured by political, sectional or primordial consideration. Such a reasonable person is one who is able to wear his observations objectively. Fundamentally, such a reasonable person is one who is present in court at the trial an must therefore arrive at a conclusion from his observation in court and not based on other events outside the court. In line with the fact of the above case, the court held that a reasonable person is not every Nigerian who had read the punch newspaper containing the publication of the government white paper but had not availed himself of the opportunity to be in court to observe the proceedings in respect of the count complained of. He must be one who is in court observing the proceedings before he arrives at the conclusion whether despite the publication in the punch newspaper the appellant had a fair try are in court or not.
Gbolahan is a 400 level law student at Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto.
He is a columnist at Vanguard Press, UDUS, an enthusiast of International Law, Election Law, Criminal Law, Tech Law and Family Law, and a budding politics-enthusiast.
Email: gbolahanalbadawiy@gmail.com
References:
Nigerian Weekly Law Reports
Prosperlaw.com.au
