Joseph Mbi Tanyi,Attorney -at- law
Right to be tried without undue delay
It's the fundamental right of every accused person charged with a criminal offence to be tried without undue delay.However, fast and swift justice may sometimes occasion a miscarriage of justice in a society where the judicial system is highly corrupt, inefficient and lack the necessary tools to carry out a proper and neat investigations.
Save error or omission on my part, many innocent citizens have spent long detention periods than if they were actually convicted will serve.Many accused persons have died in prison custody without hearing their judgments. Many have spent many years in prison only be discharged on appeal without any remedy for wrongful detention.
.
It sometimes takes years for indictments to file and /or for records of appeal to be prepared, while the accused is languishing in prison custody. For some it takes about five years for the court to deliver a judgment.
In suit No. CASWP/20C/2001 Obenson David Tabot &3 others Vs The People of Cameroon. The accused persons were charged for murder under section 276(1)(C) of the Cameroon Penal Code. The presiding judge, Justice Chief Epuli M.A by then the President of the Fako High Court found them guilty and sentenced them to death by shooting on 18th August 1998.
The convicts through their counsel appealed against the conviction and sentence .It took several years for the records to be transmitted to the South West Court of Appeal and same for judgment to be delivered.
However, Judgment was delivered on the 8th of November 2005 discharging and acquitting the accused after several adjournments. What is sad about this case is that the first accused died in prison custody out of frustration a week before the judgment was delivered.
The court had this to say ''the first appellant died in the Buea Central Prisons while this appeal was adjourned for judgment. His appeal died with him…''It is germane to point out that before the accused were indicted before the High Court no preliminary investigations were conduct total disregard of the mandatory provision of the section 24 (1) (2) of Law No. 89/0I9 of 29th December, 1989 as amended on Judicial Organization which makes a preliminary investigation compulsory in all felonies.
The defense counsel raised an objection but the trial judge overruled them. Commenting on the absence of conducting a preliminary investigation by the legal department, the Court of Appeal has this to say..''the courts are not allowed to refuse to apply a mandatory provision of the law simply because its application is considered expensive or waste of time.
It is our considered opinion that at the level of investigation it is sometimes necessary and even desirable to proceed cautiously particularly in grievous and complicated cases in order to achieve justice. In deed, we think that at that stage it is better to allow for a little necessary delay that will eventually end up in the desired justice than to have a rush that will only result in justice…''
These innocent citizens spent closed to eights of incarceration only for the gate of the Buea Central prison to be opened on the 8th of November 2005 for one of them to go out without any compensation let alone an apology from the State.
Had it been the lawyers did not appeal against the judgment and sentence, the judgment of the High Court could have become final and perhaps the accused persons wrongly executed .God forbid.
In criminal law, It is better that ten guilty men should escape than one innocent man to suffer. The presumption of the accused's innocence is not to be prejudiced by any presumption of other people's innocence. Kindly address your observations, suggestions and queries to the contact below.
Comments