Collections
Related documents
Loading PDF...
This document is 32.4 MB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
31 December 2023
Chapter 19
Revised Laws 2023
Consolidation
08 March 2022 amendment not yet applied
Amended by
Anti-Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2022
22 November 2019 amendment not yet applied
25 September 2018 amendment not yet applied
08 July 2016 amendment not yet applied
22 May 2015 amendment not yet applied
Amended by
Immigration (Amendment) Act, 2015
03 January 2014 amendment not yet applied
27 July 2012 amendment not yet applied
15 June 2003
20 December 2002 this version
14 December 2002
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 93
Judgment
81|
Reported
Court of Appeal quashed High Court’s wholesale annulment of section 148(5), holding non‑bailable provisions saved by Article 30(2).
Constitutional law — Bail — Section 148(5) Criminal Procedure Act — Whether non‑bailable offences oust judicial process — Res judicata on money‑laundering clause — Article 15(2)(a) procedure and Article 30(2) permissible limitations (lawfulness, legitimacy, proportionality).
|
|
A constitutional petition is not maintainable where alternative remedies for breaches of statutory procedures in criminal cases exist.
Constitutional law – Basic rights – Exhaustion of alternative remedies – Distinction between statutory illegality and constitutional questions – Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 30(3) – Judicial review as appropriate remedy for procedural abuses during criminal process.
|
|
Failure to formally endorse the DPP's consent in terrorism and economic crime proceedings renders the trial a nullity warranting retrial.
Criminal procedure – terrorism and economic crimes – High Court jurisdiction – necessity for DPP’s consent to be formally endorsed and entered in record – nullity of proceedings arising from lack of endorsement – retrial ordered.
|
|
High Court lacked power to revise pre-committal proceedings or order bail/dismissal for unbailable terrorism offences.
Criminal procedure — High Court revision — limits under ss.372 & 373 CPA; pre-committal matters not revisable; Bail — offences under Prevention of Terrorism Act are unbailable per s.148(5)(a)(iv) CPA; subordinate/committal courts lack jurisdiction to grant bail or dismiss charges triable only by the High Court.
|
|
The appellant's appeal was struck out as incompetent because the statutory right to appeal orders no longer subsists.
Appellate jurisdiction; limitation of DPP's right of appeal under section 6(2) AJA; interlocutory versus final orders; effect of constitutional ruling (Steven Gwaza) on DPP appeals; notice of appeal does not operate as automatic stay; stay must be sought under Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 11(3)).
|
|
The appeal challenged terrorism convictions based on allegedly improper confessions; the court found sufficient corroboration for most convictions.
Criminal law - Confessions - Terrorism charges - Corroboration of confession - Validity of evidence - Procedural errors in certification. |
|
Accused acquitted where prosecution failed to corroborate confessions and seizure, and evidence was unreliable.
Criminal law – terrorism offences – admissibility and corroboration of oral confessions and retracted cautioned statements; search and seizure compliance with s.38(3) CPA and chain of custody; insufficiency of intelligence and circumstantial evidence; conspiracy charge where substantive offences charged.
|
|
Court granted anonymity, confidentiality and video testimony to protect threatened prosecution witnesses.
Witness protection — Prevention of Terrorism Act s.34(3); Criminal Procedure Act s.188(1)–(2) — anonymity of witnesses, confidentiality of identifying material, testimony by video-conference, in-camera proceedings — committal procedure compliance (EOCCA s.30; GN No.267/2016 r.8).
|
|
Court granted non-disclosure, video testimony, and in-camera proceedings to protect witnesses facing threats.
Witness protection — non-disclosure of identity and identifying statements under s.188 CPA; video-conference testimony; in-camera trial; ex parte orders under s.34(3) PTA and s.188 CPA; threshold: imminent risk to witness life or safety.
|
|
Section 148(5) CPA unconstitutionally ousts judicial consideration of bail by lacking prescribed procedural safeguards.
Criminal procedure — Bail — Constitutionality of statutory "non-bailable" offences — Mandatory refusal of bail without "procedure prescribed by law" — Ouster of judicial power under article 13(3) — Violation of article 15(2)(a) — Not a breach of presumption of innocence (article 13(6)(b)) — Not saved by limitations clause — Suspension under article 30(5) to permit legislative cure.
|
Gazette
5Journal
4Law Reform Report
2Subsidiary legislation
|
Title
|
|
|---|---|
| Government Notice 61 of 2023 | |
| Government Notice 379 of 2022 | |
| Government Notice 361 of 2011 |