To Bail Or Not Bail?
By Dickson Jere
The starting point is Article 18 of our Constitution. It provides that every person is innocent until proven guilty by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, bail exists to support this proposition.
Bail is meant to allow every accused person to attend Court whenever is wanted. It is also meant for someone to continue going about his business until a decision is made on whether is guilty or not guilty.
Therefore, bail is denied where evidence show that the accused person may not attend court, or flee the country or indeed temper with the evidence or victims. This is why bail conditions differ from one person to another. It all depends on the evidence presented before Court.
Look at the few points, which Parliament may have missed out when coming up with the long list of offences that have no bail.
Having looked at the above, I dare say all offences must be bailable. Whether to give bail or not should be left to the Court to determine the circumstances like they do with many cases. They look at whether the accused is of fixed abode.
Does he have sureties. Others are given cash bail. Or indeed stiffer ones such as making them to report at the nearest police station every week. These mechanisms are there for the Court to make sure the accused does not “jump bail”. I would add that only second offenders with a previous conviction of similar crime should be denied bail!
Wise observation!
When DJ writes, I read everything, i don’t leave any word, I digest every detail. I new he was coming to protect the rights of everyone just like he protected usem from the land bill, thank you.
Go DJ, help these wanton, emotional law makers
