Government was expected today to introduce a certifi cate of urgency about the Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill before Parliament. The bill was to be tabled for its first, second and third reading on the same day and, with a simple majorityvote, it would become law

The object of the bill is to give the Director of Public Prosecution wide powers following the acquittal of accused parties prosecuted before the Assizes. The bill in its Preamble states that a) the DPP may not only appeal against a sentence but also against an acquittal or a conviction of a lesser charge by the Supreme Court, and b) the DPP or a convicted person may apply for a review of the proceedings relating to an acquittal or a conviction before the Supreme Court.

The Bill if voted will have far reaching consequences upon the outcome of criminal cases at the Assizes in this country. It gives the DPP two options following an acquittal or a conviction for a lesser offence. He can either appeal or he can apply for a review. The bill is silent as regards the time limit for applications for review

In substance the Bill changes the whole approach that we have adopted for centuries following not guilty verdicts or guilty verdicts for lesser offences returned by the jury. It affects fundamental constitutional rights enshrined in section 10(5) of the Constitution. It renders nugatory the principle of ‘‘autrefois acquit’’ and the protection against double jeopardy. It seriously undermines the outcome of jury trials because never before has the prosecution been invested with the power to challenge a verdict of not guilty or a verdict of guilty by a jury for a lesser offence than that charged.

With this proposed law someone who is acquitted will always live in the agony that at any point of time his acquittal may be overturned and he is put in jeopardy of a new trial.

What is more disturbing is that the DPP retains the power to ask for a review of an acquittal on the basis of fresh and compelling evidence in relation to the offence or the lesser offence without imposing any time limit within which he should make such applications.

While we know that an appeal can only be entertained by the Court if it is prosecuted within the time limit of 21 days following conviction and sentence, the Bill does not define clearly within what time constraint the application for review should be made. Will the application for review be made within the 21 days limit which is mandatory for appeal cases or can it be made months or even years after an acquittal when the new evidence comes forward. If this is so, and it is proposed that this is how it should be,‘‘not guilty verdicts’’ are no longer fi nal and can be challenged at any point in time. With the proposal made in the Bill acquittals at the Assizes can never be fi nal and conclusive.

A Bill of this nature requires mature thinking before it is voted into law. We need to have a proper and in depth debate and consider the views of the legal profession, human rights group, constitutional experts, we need to study the system in other jurisdictions that have similar legal principles as ours. We need a lot more than the limited one day debate of Honourable Members who themselves have not had sufficient time to study and research on all aspects of the Bill. It certainly does not serve any purpose to vote a law that makes sweeping changes to our legal system and then subsequently to find out that it is a bad law.

It is important that time is given to debate on the objects of the bill. It will be in the higher interests of the country that the Bill be submitted to all relevant stakeholders in this country before being submitted for voting before the National Assembly with appropriate amendments that are deemed necessary.