Posted by Hiuare.W on 11/5/2006, 5:29 pm The 2 accused are Ministers of the State. This changing circumstance must be put into its right context. The Magistrate who presided over Dausabea's bail appliction misconstrued this crucial ground by saying that members of parliament do not enjoy any special privilege, that puts them above the law. This is a vaque statement. The 2 Ministers did not come to Court seeking any special privilege. Both appeared in Court with their counsels seeking bail within the armbit of the laws. Total denial of bail, means total denial of the 2 Ministers right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty which is vested under the Constitution.
202.151.26.175
The Magistrates denial of bail to the 2 Ministers is a far outcry.
Again, I must say that, there are bail options, available under the laws, whereby the 2 Ministers are entitled to in order to carry out their lawful duties.
The Magistrates refusal of bail on the basis that these 2 Ministers might interfere with witnesses does not mean, total denial to bail. The Magistrates do have the power to grant conditional bail, cash, surety and others. Imposing strict bail conditions is probable in the present case so that it stops the 2 Ministers not to interfere with any witnesses. The Magistrates do have the power to do that, and am still wondering why the 2 Ministers lawyers' not suggesting that or other bail options to the Court.
In any case, the conditional bail would reflect the seriousness of the offence, and also to stop in any way the 2 Ministers possible interferences with the witnesses or pose any danger to the public.
The Magistrates conclusive findings that if bail is granted the 2 Ministers might interfere with witnesses can be taken care of by imposing conditional bail.
Hiuare.W.
SUVA
Message Thread:
« Back to thread