135.
In the present case, the Applicants were arrested on the basis of a
criminal charge. It is a trite law that the arrest or detention of individuals for
purpose of criminal charge is a common and valid ground for detention
recognized by both the domestic legislation of the Respondent and international
human rights law. 32 However, the Court considers that the validity of a particular
ground for deprivation of liberty shall also be examined in accordance with the
circumstances of each case and in the light of the requirement of
reasonableness. In the context of criminal proceedings, once an accused is
acquitted of a particular crime by a court of law, the fundamental right to liberty
and also the standard of reasonableness require that s/he shall be released
forthwith and be allowed to enjoy his liberty unhindered.
136. In the instant Application, the Applicants were released in accordance with
the decision of the trial Magistrate's Court acquitting them of charges of armed
robbery and conspiracy to commit crimes, but re-arrested immediately and kept
in detention. They were subsequently charged with another crime of stealing
and armed robbery based on the same facts under different sections of the
Penal code. The Respondent has not proffered any reason as to why it was
necessary to charge the Applicants with a new crime of stealing and armed
robbery on the basis of the same facts after a court of law had already acquitted
the Applicants of similar charges.
137. The Court is of the view that it is inappropriate, unjust, and thus, arbitrary to
re-arrest an individual and file new charges based on the same facts without
justification after s/he has been acquitted of a particular crime by a court of law.
The right to liberty becomes illusory and due process of law ends up being
unpredictable if individuals can anytime be re-arrested and charged with new
crimes after a court of law has declared their innocence. The Court thus finds
that there was no a reasonable ground for the re-arrest of the Applicants in the
time between their acquittal by the Resident Magistrate's Court and their
conviction by High Court for the initial charges.
U-;l;ffj;
32 Article 9 of ICCPR expressly envisages a situation where individuals may be deprived of their liberty
on the basis of criminal charge. (See paragraph 3)36
~/ ":f Z3~ ~ ~