The Court of Appeal held that the High Court Judge wrongly granted bail and improperly adopted another judge’s order, but left the case to proceed in the trial court.
Section 148(5) of the CPA is unconstitutional as it denies bail for a range of offences without providing a meaningful procedure or judicial discretion, violating articles 13(3) and 15(2)(a) of the Constitution. The provision is not saved by article 30(2) as it lacks adequate safeguards, is overly broad, and is susceptible to abuse and arbitrary decisions. The denial of bail for armed robbery under section 148(5)(a)(i) had already been declared null and void. The remaining part of section 148(5) is given an 18-month period for rectification, after which it will be invalid if not amended.
The court held that since the DPP's certificate objecting to bail remains valid and operative, and the circumstances leading to denial of bail in the previous applications have not changed, the court cannot entertain a fresh bail application. The application is therefore incompetent and struck out.