Court underscores that there should be other “factors relating to the person’s character, his morals, home, occupation, assets, family ties and all kinds of links with the country in which he is prosecuted”21 which would either minimize or exacerbate the risk of absconding bail. The combination of these factors would then determine whether the accused should be released on bail or detained. 128. Likewise, the peril that the accused will interfere with investigation should be buttressed with evidence adduced by the prosecutor. Therefore, it should neither be presumed nor pre-set by law. The Court affirms the decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana that, “any legislation, outside the Constitution, that takes away or purports to take away, either expressly or by necessary implication, the right of an accused to be considered for bail would have prejudged or presumed him guilty even before the court has said so.”22 129. The Court therefore finds that the outright denial of bail provided for under Section 148(5) of the CPA is neither necessary nor proportionate to the aim that it seeks to achieve. 130. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that Sub-sections 148(5)(a), (b) and (c) of the CPA violate the presumption of innocence under Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter. ii. Right to be heard 131. The Applicants aver that the Section 148(5) of the CPA is an impediment to an accused’s motion for bail and consequently is a breach of the right to be heard before an impartial and independent tribunal under Article 7(1) of the Charter. 21 22 ECtHR, Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8. Supra note 30. 29