The Influence of Public Inquiries on Criminal Law

CONTRIBUTOR: JOHNSON OLUGBADE

Introduction

A public inquiry is a formal investigation conducted by an independent panel or chairperson, usually appointed by the government, to examine matters of significant public concern.^[1] Such inquiries are typically convened to investigate issues ranging from corruption and human rights violations to administrative lapses and large-scale disasters.^[2] Although their primary mandate is to ascertain facts and make recommendations for policy or institutional reform, their influence often extends into criminal law.^[3] In many instances, their findings shape investigative priorities, inform prosecutorial decisions, and stimulate legal reforms.

This article examines the role and impact of public inquiries on the development and administration of criminal law. It explores how the findings of commissions and panels shape criminal investigations and inform legal reform. It briefly examines the adjudicative process of tribunals of Inquiry in Nigeria. It further considers the evidentiary and legal weight of such inquiries, particularly whether their conclusions can ground criminal liability or merely serve a persuasive function. It concludes that public inquiries have become indispensable tools in criminal law, with a significant and multifaceted influence, particularly in shaping investigations and informing policy decisions.

Nature and Legal Character of Public Inquiries

The role of an inquiry is to establish facts, analyse those facts, and produce a report addressing a matter of public concern.^[4] It is primarily a fact-finding mechanism designed to uncover the truth about specific events or systemic issues. Though inquiries may adopt procedures similar to judicial proceedings, such as summoning witnesses and receiving evidence, they are not courts of law and do not exercise judicial powers in the strict sense.^[5]

By conducting proceedings in public, inquiries enable participants, the wider public, and the media to scrutinise the process, draw independent conclusions based on the evidence presented, and hold those in authority accountable.

Public inquiries are generally classified as either administrative or quasi-judicial. This classification reflects their structured and formal procedures, while recognising that they are not bound by the strict rules of evidence and procedure applicable in criminal trials.^[6] This flexibility enables them to gather a wide range of information efficiently, including material that may be inadmissible in court. However, it also underscores the limits of their authority, particularly in determining criminal liability.^[7]

Influence on Criminal Investigations and Prosecution

Public inquiries are now firmly embedded within the administrative systems of many jurisdictions. They are vested with extensive powers to facilitate their fact-finding functions, some of which may intersect with individual rights.^[8] Public inquiries often serve as precursors to criminal investigations: their findings may expose wrongdoing, identify relevant individuals or institutions, and generate leads for law enforcement agencies. In this respect, they operate as important mechanisms for uncovering facts that might otherwise remain concealed.

Prosecutorial authorities may consider these findings when deciding whether to initiate criminal proceedings.^[9] However, it is a settled principle of criminal law that such findings, on their own, cannot sustain a criminal charge. Allegations arising from an inquiry must be independently investigated and supported by admissible evidence before a court of competent jurisdiction.^[10]

Accordingly, while public inquiries may significantly influence the direction and scope of criminal investigations, they do not displace the evidentiary burden required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Adjudicative Process of Tribunal of Inquiry in Nigeria

Tribunals of inquiry in Nigeria are established to investigate specific issues and recommend appropriate actions, and they play a significant role in the country’s legal and administrative system. ^[11] The concept of administrative adjudication, however, has been viewed as a challenge to the principle of the separation of powers, given that judicial authority is constitutionally vested in the courts under sections 6(1) and (2).^[12] By this principle, administrative tribunals, as part of the executive arm of government, are not expected to exercise judicial powers.

This apparent tension has been addressed by recognising that such bodies exercise supervisory or quasi-judicial functions, rather than strictly judicial powers. The exercise of these functions is subject to the requirements of fair hearing and the common law principles of natural justice, namely nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause) and audi alteram partem (hear the other side).

Accordingly, in National Electoral Commission v Nzeribe,^[13] it was held that a tribunal, notwithstanding its extensive powers, remains subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of a court of record.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, administrative adjudication is recognised under Section 36^[14] as reflected in the inclusion of the term ‘tribunals.’ As the Court observed in Obi v Mbakwe,^[15] administrative adjudication was developed to facilitate the efficient functioning of the administrative system by enabling executive authorities to determine rights in accordance with applicable laws.

Administrative adjudication is distinguished from traditional courts by its relative informality and its limited adherence to strict precedent. It also avoids undue procedural technicalities. Nevertheless, like a court of law, an administrative adjudicatory body must possess the requisite competence and jurisdiction over matters before it for its decisions to be valid.^[16]

Evidentiary Value and Legal Weight of Inquiry Findings

A central issue in assessing the influence of public inquiries is the evidentiary status of their findings. Generally, the conclusions of such bodies are not binding on courts and do not possess direct evidentiary value in criminal proceedings. This position is grounded in the recognition that inquiries do not adhere to the strict procedural safeguards required for the determination of criminal liability.^[17]

The admissibility of evidence in criminal trials is governed by principles designed to ensure fairness, reliability, and due process.^[18] As public enquiries may rely on untested evidence, their reports cannot constitute proof of the facts contained therein. At most, such findings may serve as persuasive or informational material to guide further investigation.

Courts have consistently maintained that criminal responsibility must be established independently of any findings made by non-judicial bodies. Any contrary approach would risk undermining the integrity of the judicial process and eroding the rights of the accused.

Conclusion

Public inquiries have become indispensable tools in criminal adjudication. Their influence on criminal law is significant and multifaceted, particularly in shaping investigations and informing policy decisions. However, their role must remain carefully circumscribed to avoid encroaching on the domain of the courts. While their findings are valuable, they cannot substitute for the strict evidentiary standards and procedural safeguards that underpin criminal adjudication.

Ultimately, maintaining a balance between effective accountability and the protection of individual rights is essential. Public inquiries must complement, rather than undermine, the principles of fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and due process that lie at the core of the criminal justice system.

Reference:

1. Evan Wright, ‘What Is the Difference Between a Public Inquiry and a Criminal Investigation? (2024) https://www.acquisition-international.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-public-inquiry-and-a-criminal-investigation/ accessed 25 March, 2026. ↑
2. Ibid. ↑
3. Ibid. ↑
4. Emma Ireton, ‘Public inquiries: irreconcilable interests and the importance of managing expectations’ (2023) Vol. 45, No. 3, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. ↑
5. Ibid. ↑
6. Ibid. ↑
7. Ibid. ↑
8. DAVID T.S. FRASER, ‘COLLISION COURSE: PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS’ (1999) Vol. 56, No. 1, DALHOUSIE JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES. ↑
9. Matthew Gillett, ‘3 – Fact-Finding, Procedure, and Evidence at the International Criminal Court Concerning Environmental Harm’ (2022) https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/prosecuting-environmental-harm-before-the-international-criminal-court/factfinding-procedure-and-evidence-at-the-international-criminal-court-concerning-environmental-harm/400909C3477B3538FB8D6F5BD2F547C6 accessed 26 March, 2026. ↑
10. Bright E. Oniha, ‘EVIDENCE: STANDARDS OF PROOF, RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY’ (2025) https://nji.gov.ng/assets/publication/Session-5-Evidence.pdf acc ↑
11. OKPALAOBI, IGWE & IKE-NKEMKA, ‘EXAMINING THE ADJUDICATIVE PROCESS OF TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY IN NIGERIA’ (2024) Vol. 6, No. 2, International Review of Law and Jurisprudence (IRLJ). ↑
12. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). ↑
13. (1991) LCN/0107(CA). ↑
14. Ibid. ↑
15. (1984) LLJR-SC ↑
16. Egunjobi v FRN (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt.1342) 534 at 579. ↑
17. Emma Ireton, ‘How Public is a Public Inquiry? (2018) Vol. 45, No. 3, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. ↑
18. Ja. Matis, ‘Legality and admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings’ (2024), Vol. 3, No. 82, Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law. ↑