132. Citing the decision in Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. Tanzania, the Applicants submit that the right of an accused to be heard on an application for bail and also on appeal is contravened by Section 148(5) of the CPA. 133. The Applicants contend that Section 148(5) of the CPA impinges on the discretion of judicial officers who have the onus to weigh factors for or against granting of bail. They argue further that the judiciary is established by Article 107A(1) of the Constitution of the Respondent State “as the authority with the final decision in dispensation of justice in Tanzania.” 134. Citing the Ghanaian Supreme Court case of Martin Kpebu v. Attorney General, the Applicants submit that the decision as to whether to deprive a person of his or her liberty is the domain of the judiciary and not the executive and especially that “… liberty is too priceless to be forfeited through the zeal of an administrative agent.” 135. According to the Applicants, Section 148(5) of the CPA amounts to an ouster of the jurisdiction of the Respondent State’s Courts to determine bail and thus a violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter. In addition, the Applicants aver that the ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts to determine bail is an affront to the dispensation of justice. 136. According to the Applicants, Section 148(5) of the CPA which proscribes the granting of bail to an accused person who has previously been granted bail by a court and failed to comply with the conditions of the bail or absconded is a violation of the right to be heard. 137. The Applicants contend that Section 148(5) of the CPA “does not consider any justifications that one might or could have had and which led to his failure of complying with the bail conditions.” Furthermore, that the accused has the right to be heard despite his previous behaviour. * 30