freedoms is permissible on the basis of “…collective security, morality and common interest …”. 116. The Respondent State avers that the Applicants’ claim has no merit as Section 148(5) of the CPA is “saved by the Constitution, the UDHR, ACHPR and ICCPR” and therefore the limitation is justified and serves a legitimate purpose. It emphasizes that this purpose is to protect witnesses “who are the eyes and ears of justice.” 117. In this regard, the Respondent State avers that Section 148(5) of the CPA is reasonable as it does not restrict bail for each and every offence but for a selected few. 118. The Respondent State contends that the Applicants’ allegation is untenable especially as the common interest of the general public should be guarded against individuals who are in conflict with the law. *** 119. Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter provides: “every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises … (b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal.” 120. The Court recalls the provision of Sub-section 148(5)(b) of the CPA which stipulates that an accused person who has previously served a prison term exceeding three years would not be granted bail. 121. The Court notes that Sub-section 148(5)(c) of the CPA provides that an accused person should not be granted bail, if, “…it appears that the accused person has previously been granted bail by a court and failed to comply with the conditions of the bail or absconded.” 27