Much as we have talked about judicial reforms, it is paramount that they are implemented.
The Patriotic Front government has shown willingness and zeal to bring on board all stakeholders for the sake of transparency in all the reforms it is undertaking.
It is sad to see how our judiciary through the courts, is being used to fix people by following existing precedents.
Sureties are being remanded for appearing in court to represent an absentee accused when the bond and bail conditions entail that in the event that the accused person fails to attend court for one reason or the other, the surety should avail himself or herself to court to explain as to why the accused is not in court.
Some magistrates seem to have forgotten or they have deliberately ignored this to fix people in connivance with some prosecutors.
We are all aware that anyone is innocent until proved guilty but some magistrates and prosecutors prove accused persons guilty before they are proven so.
Where on earth do you allow similar cases that applyÂ the law differently? How does the court allow an adjournment due to non-availability of an accused person in one case and refuse a similar application and remand a surety in another case?
How does a court allow an application by a complainant to withdraw a case and refuse a similar application from another complainant? Does the magistrate have powers to trample on a complainantâ€™s right of forgiveness?
The judiciary should also endeavour to encourage further training so that it moves in tandem with the current global judicial changes.
JUDICIAL REFORMS ADVOCATE