The accused person faces a charge of murder under Section 203 as read with 204 of the Penal Code.
The accused person has pleaded with this court to be admitted to bail pending the further hearing of this matter.
The court heard all the arguments for and against the grant of bail.
Article 49 (1) (h) of the constitution guarantees each and every accused person the right to bail.
The same may only be limited in circumstances where there are compelling reasons.
The primary objective of granting bail being that an accused person would still enjoy his liberty conditioned on him returning to court for the hearing of his case.
The state opposed his release on bail citing the possibility to interfere with witnesses.
One of the remaining witnesses by the name Ezekiel is said to have been a victim of attack by the accused person and the prosecution is apprehensive that there is every possibility of him being interfered with by the accused should he be admitted to bail.
The courts have held time without number that the risk of interference with witnesses is a compelling reason to deny bail.
This matter has progressed well so far with 3 prosecution witnesses having testified.
The name Ezekiel has featured in the course of evidence and he is yet to testify.
The court is under duty to ensure that in enforcing the bill of rights the court bears in its mind the provisions of Article 24 of the Constitution which permits limitation of rights of an individual in an open and democratic state.
The right of an individual may thus be limited only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable.
The limitation of the right to bail in order to protect witnesses is reasonable and justifiable thus the prosecution has made out a good case for the denial of bail.
The court must ensure in applying the constitutional provisions relating to bail the interests of justice are protected. The court should ensure that where there are compelling reasons to deny bail that the same is not granted.
The punishment of those found guilty of crimes is a cardinal duty of the state and the fair trial rights of an accused person must be respected while at the same time protecting the administration of justice from any potential threats to it such as the interference with witnesses.
The goal would not be achieved if persons brought before the courts are released on bail only to evade to trial.
The court has so far heard evidence in this matter and more so the evidence surrounding the circumstances surrounding the accused person’s arrest.
It would not be in the interests of justice to grant the accused person bail at this stage of the proceedings. The security of the accused is also a primary consideration that this court takes into account.
The court is not persuaded that the accused person is fit for admission to bail considering the risk of interference with witnesses and his own security.
This court acknowledges that liberty is precious as observed by Ibrahim J (as he then was) in Danson Mgunya & Another Vs Republic (2010) eKLR. However, the right to liberty must be carefully weighed against the security of witness and the accused person in order not to compromise a trial.
The facts so indicate that Ezekiel is a key witness and he must be protected from any possibility of interference so as not to compromise the interests of justice.
The accused person too must be protected against any potential harm from the street family that the deceased belonged to.
It is on the basis of the above considerations that this court finds that the accused persons plea for release on bail cannot succeed.
The order that this court makes is that the prosecutions should fast track the hearing of the matter in full recognition of the fact that the accused person is still innocent until proven guilty in light of the provisions of Article 50 (2) (a) of the Constitution.
The court shall ensure that in the spirit of Article 159 of the Constitution this matter is heard and determined expeditiously.
It is so ordered.
The accused person has pleaded with this court to be admitted to bail pending the further hearing of this matter.
The court heard all the arguments for and against the grant of bail.
Article 49 (1) (h) of the constitution guarantees each and every accused person the right to bail.
The same may only be limited in circumstances where there are compelling reasons.
The primary objective of granting bail being that an accused person would still enjoy his liberty conditioned on him returning to court for the hearing of his case.
The state opposed his release on bail citing the possibility to interfere with witnesses.
One of the remaining witnesses by the name Ezekiel is said to have been a victim of attack by the accused person and the prosecution is apprehensive that there is every possibility of him being interfered with by the accused should he be admitted to bail.
The courts have held time without number that the risk of interference with witnesses is a compelling reason to deny bail.
This matter has progressed well so far with 3 prosecution witnesses having testified.
The name Ezekiel has featured in the course of evidence and he is yet to testify.
The court is under duty to ensure that in enforcing the bill of rights the court bears in its mind the provisions of Article 24 of the Constitution which permits limitation of rights of an individual in an open and democratic state.
The right of an individual may thus be limited only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable.
The limitation of the right to bail in order to protect witnesses is reasonable and justifiable thus the prosecution has made out a good case for the denial of bail.
The court must ensure in applying the constitutional provisions relating to bail the interests of justice are protected. The court should ensure that where there are compelling reasons to deny bail that the same is not granted.
The punishment of those found guilty of crimes is a cardinal duty of the state and the fair trial rights of an accused person must be respected while at the same time protecting the administration of justice from any potential threats to it such as the interference with witnesses.
The goal would not be achieved if persons brought before the courts are released on bail only to evade to trial.
The court has so far heard evidence in this matter and more so the evidence surrounding the circumstances surrounding the accused person’s arrest.
It would not be in the interests of justice to grant the accused person bail at this stage of the proceedings. The security of the accused is also a primary consideration that this court takes into account.
The court is not persuaded that the accused person is fit for admission to bail considering the risk of interference with witnesses and his own security.
This court acknowledges that liberty is precious as observed by Ibrahim J (as he then was) in Danson Mgunya & Another Vs Republic (2010) eKLR. However, the right to liberty must be carefully weighed against the security of witness and the accused person in order not to compromise a trial.
The facts so indicate that Ezekiel is a key witness and he must be protected from any possibility of interference so as not to compromise the interests of justice.
The accused person too must be protected against any potential harm from the street family that the deceased belonged to.
It is on the basis of the above considerations that this court finds that the accused persons plea for release on bail cannot succeed.
The order that this court makes is that the prosecutions should fast track the hearing of the matter in full recognition of the fact that the accused person is still innocent until proven guilty in light of the provisions of Article 50 (2) (a) of the Constitution.
The court shall ensure that in the spirit of Article 159 of the Constitution this matter is heard and determined expeditiously.
It is so ordered.