RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING ABSTRACT: The section 36, sub (4) and (6) of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria as amended has help to promote Human Right most particularly right to fair hearing which at first without it, generated a rot of problems in the part of the offenders or accused persons, the lawyers and the court. The objectives of this project are:(a) To evaluate the importance of human rights particularly fair hearing to human beings.(b) To evaluate the effects of a country staying without fair hearing in relation with criminal code, criminal litigation and many more in Nigerian(c) To access to attitude of the court towards section 36 or the 1999 constitution of Nigeria as amended.(d) Make recommendations that would promote development and rights to fair hearing in Nigeria.To achieve these, the work is divide into some chapters. Chapter one deals with the introduction, chapter two deals with the purpose and essence of fair hearing in Nigeria, while chapter three deals with fair hearing as a right at the core of natural justice and as an immutable and unassailable principle of law, chapter four deals with the Act vis-s-vis right to for/hear and chapter five deals with the conclusion. The methodology employed are intensive and thorough book research. This will help to improve and awaken the mentality of fair hearing in Nigeria. TABLE OF CONTENTContentTitle page Certification Dedication Acknowledgement Table of contents Table of cases Table of statuesTable of abbreviationsAbstractCHAPTER ONEIntroductionCHAPTER TWO Purpose of fair hearingCHAPTER THREEFair hearingAudi alterem patemNemo judex in causa sua In azokwu v. Nwokanna supra at 56 Presumption of innocence Right to information of crime committedRight to adequate time and facilities to prepare for defenceDifference between fair trial and fair hearingPer j. I. Okoro jsc; [p. 21, paras. B-e]Per a. Sanusi jsc: [p. 30, paras. G – h.)CHAPTER FOURThe land use act vis-à-vis right to fair hearingCHAPTER FIVE ConclusionRecommendations References CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION In any relationship between two or more persons, there is bound to be disagreement or friction between the parties. Where the parties are not equal in status or strength, there is the possibility or likelihood that one party may dominate or oppress the other. It is also safe to say that in a situation where the parties are unequal and one is likely to oppress the other, it can be supposed that the stronger is likely to oppress the weaker, the bigger will oppress the smaller, and the richer will oppress the poorer and so on. In the symbiotic relationship between the state on the other hand and the citizen on the other hand, there is no gainsaying the fact that the state as an entity is a stronger and bigger than the individual citizen. It is safe to suggest that unless some checks are put in place, the state represented by a few persons elected or selected into offices through which the state acts), is likely to oppress the ordinary citizen.It is in the light of this fear that the constitution, as well as other statues make elaborate provisions for some safeguards to protect the citizens especially where a citizen is standing trial for a criminal offence. The word “safeguard” simply means” a thing that serve as a protection from harm, risk or danger” coming from somebody or something see (case of Jonathan Crowther), Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of current English (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) p. 10:36). Thus when we talk about constitutional and statutory safeguards to ensure fair trial, what is referred to as the protective measures put in place by the constitution and other statues to ensure that an accused person standing trial for an offence is given a fair trial that is, a trial that is not only fair offence is given a fair trial that is, a trial that is not only fair but seen to be fair instead of prosecution of criminal cases. There are many of such legal safeguards. These include:.