Editorial
High Court bail ruling
Directive needs to be implemented without delay
THE High Court ruling asking the government to free on bail the thousands of detainees who have been languishing behind bars without trial for over 360 days is a welcome victory for the rule of law. To this end, the attorney general and principal secretary to the prime minister have been directed to initiate the process 'considering merits of the cases'. Under the constitution, those accused of an offence have the right to a speedy trial, and there can be no excuse for keeping someone locked up without trial for such a length of time. It is now for the government to implement the directive without delay, and to take the necessary steps to ensure that such a miscarriage of justice is not repeated.The numbers that were produced before the court in BLAST's public interest litigation are shocking: twenty-six people behind bars for over ten years, more than nine hundred behind bars for over five years, and a further six thousand behind bars for over two years. Please bear in mind that many of these people may well be innocent, or even if found guilty, could be sentenced to prison terms less than what they have already served. The shameful neglect of these unfortunate prisoners is made worse by the fact that, were it not for BLAST's case, which was in turn prompted by Daily Star reports, the seven thousand plus prisoners would have continued to have their constitutional rights trampled underfoot by an uncaring administration. The High Court ruling has also directed the government to immediately transfer 1,233 child prisoners from jails to correction centres. This too is to be applauded -- confining children in adult facilities is universally condemned as a practice -- and the authorities concerned should take steps to comply without delay. The administration has used the denial of bail in high profile cases as a measure to punish individuals even before they have been found guilty in a court of law. But in the case of the thousands held without bail that were the subject of the High Court ruling, it seems that the motive was not malice but indifference, which is almost as bad.
|
|
