to the standard of proof for the particular dispute. A statute that interferes with the process and effectively hands power to one of the parties to predetermine the outcome of the dispute, encroaches on the equality of arms and goes against due process.29 153. The Court notes that its position herein above has been reflected in the European Court of Human Rights’ (hereinafter referred to as “ECHR”) case law, which has held that the automated refusal of bail by virtue of the operation of a law in the absence of judicial discretion is a violation of Article 5(3) of the European Convention of Human Rights.30 The ECHR stipulated that the granting of bail cannot be formalistic which qualifies as arbitrary detention. 154. Furthermore, a number of countries have dispensed with provisions similar to Section 148(5) of the CPA owing to its limit of judicial control whenever an application of bail is submitted.31 155. The Court, as already noted, does not take issue with the desired objective of the Respondent State, that is, to protect witnesses, guarantee security among others. Even so, as succinctly elucidated by various courts in different jurisdictions, the legislature should not play the role of the judicial officers by tying the hands of the court and dictating to it the specific outcome, in this regard, the denial of bail. It is incumbent on the legislature to provide guidelines in relation to different circumstances which the learned judicial officer would take into account and which would militate against or in favour of release. 29 Kambole v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) supra, § 97. ECtHR, Piruzyan v. Armenia, Application No. 33376/07, § 105. 31 See Constitutional Court of Ghana, Supra, note 30, Per Justice Akamba; Constitutional Court of South Africa, Bongani v. the State, Vusi Dladla, Angel Khumalo, Willy Sindane, John Sibonyoni and Philip Mogabudi v. the State, the State v. Mark David Joubert and the State v. Jan Johannes Schietekat 3 June 1999, § 10; High Court of Kenya, Republic v. Robert Zippor Nzilu, Criminal case 14 of 2018 [2018] eKLR; High Court of the United Kingdom, Secretary of State for the Home Department v. MB (FC) 2006] EWHC 1000 (Admin). 30 34