Preface

109
criminal justice of common law. The procedure is that the judge or a Cadi shall ask
each of the parties or litigants thus:
Meaning: Do you have more grounds or evidence to give. As earlier stated
the answers of the parties shall be attested to by two credible witnesses before the
Cadi proceed to judgment. The procedure is a condition precedent to a valid
judgment. Where the proceeding of a court is lacking this fundamental procedure is
held to be a nullity and liable to be set aside on appeal. See NASIRU ALHAJI
MUHAMMDU VS HARUNA MUHAMMADU & 1O OTHER (2001) 6 NWLR
(Pt. 708)104. In SULEIMAN VS ISYAKU & 6 ORS (2006) 3 SLR, Pt 1, it was
held, per Wali, JSC thus:
“It is a mandatory principle of Islamic law that no one shall be
condemned without being afforded the opportunity of being heard. At
the end of the parties’ case, the court shall ask them whether they
have anything more to say before the court pronounces its judgment.
This is what is called Al-Izar, something having similarity with
allocutus.”
On the legal consequences of failure to observe the procedure of I’izar
Muntaka Coomasie, JCA (as he then was) in HAKIMIN BOYI UMAR VS
A’ISHA BAKOSHI (2006) 3 SLR pt1 P.80, put it succinctly thus:- “I must say
without mincing words that it is wrong to condemn a party unheard. Both the
common law and Sharia law protects the principle of hearing the other party. It
was clearly stated in so many words that Al’Izar must be announced before the
decision. The judge must ask the party whether he has anything more to say