The publicity of hearings is an important safeguard in the interest of the individual and of society at large. At the same time Article 14, paragraph 1 acknowledges that courts have the power to exclude all or part of the public for reasons spelt out in that paragraph. It should be noted that, apart from such exceptional circumstances, the Committee considers that a hearing must be open to the public in general, including members of the press, and must not, for instance, be limited only to a particular category of persons... 52. The exceptional circumstances under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which the above Committee monitors), are for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. The Commission notes that these circumstances are exhaustive, as indicated by the use of the phrase "apart from such exceptional circumstances". 53. The government has only presented an omnibus statement in its defence to the effect that the right to fair hearing in public was subject to the proviso that the court or tribunal might exclude from the proceedings persons other than the parties thereto in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, etc. It has not specifically indicated which of these circumstances prompted it to exclude the public from such trial. The Commission therefore considers the argument not sufficient enough to avail the Government of Nigeria such defence. 54. Considering the fact that as alleged by the Complainant, prior to the setting up of the tribunal, the government had organised intense pre-trial publicity to persuade members of the public of the occurrence of a coup and the involvement of those arrested in connection with it, the Commission is constrained to find the exclusion of the same public in the actual trial unjustified and in violation of the victim's right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 7 of the Charter. 55. It is alleged that prior to his arraignment, precisely, for the 49 days he was detained, Mr Malaolu was not allowed access to his lawyer, neither was he given the opportunity to be represented and defended by a lawyer of his own choice at the trial. Rather, he was assigned a military lawyer by the tribunal. The Complainant submits that by refusing Mr Malaolu access to his lawyer, the Government of Nigeria was in contravention of Article 7(1) (c) of the Charter which provides: Every individual shall have the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice. 56. In its Resolution on the Right to Recourse and Fair Trial, the Commission in re-enforcing this guarantee observed in paragraph 2 (e) (i) thus: In the determination of charges against individuals, the individual shall be entitled in particular to: (i) … communicate in confidence with counsel of their choice The denial of this right therefore is a violation of these basic guarantees. 57. The Complainant alleged that the Special Military Tribunal which tried the convicted person was neither competent, independent nor impartial because members of the tribunal were selected by the Head of State, General Sani Abacha, and the Provisional Ruling Council (PRC), against whom the alleged offence was committed. Some members of the Tribunal are also serving army officers. For instance, the President of the Tribunal, Major-General Victor Malu is also a member of the Provisional Ruling Council, which is empowered by the Treason and Other Offences (Special Military Tribunal) Decree No. 1 of 1986, to confirm the sentences passed by the Tribunal. This is a breach of the right to a fair trial as stipulated in Article 7(1) (d) of the Charter, which states: Every individual shall have… the right to be tried… by an impartial court or tribunal. 58. The government has not refuted this specific claim. It only states that the Treason and Other Offences (Special Military Tribunal) Act, Cap 444 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 under which Malaolu was tried arose from the ashes of the Treason and Other Offences (Special Military Tribunal) Decree No. 1 of 1986 enacted by the then military government headed by General Ibrahim Babangida (Rtd.). Further, it asserts that its submission would not address the merits or demerits of the trial. 59. The Commission is not taking an issue with the history and origin of the laws nor the intention why they were promulgated. What is of concern here to the Commission is whether the said trial conforms to the fair hearing standards under the Charter. The Commission is of the opinion that to