THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI
Application No. 59 of 2007
Mondomo Vs Republic
Application No. 60 of 2007
Khembo Vs Republic
HON. CHINANGWA, J.
Counsel for Applicants
Mchenga, Counsel for Respondent
Msiska, Law Clerk
U L I N G
applications have been consolidated into one hearing because the
subject matters are the same, bail.
The state being
represented by Ms Mchenga raised no objection. However, I am very
reluctant to grant bail.
First, it has come
to my knowledge that very often counsel take a simple approach in
matters of bail. The state is often not conversant
with the facts
of the case, but not bothering to enquire from the police an update
of the case.
Second, it has
come to my knowledge that where prosecuting counsel is ill-prepared,
it is the practice to detail another counsel
on his/her behalf.
In these two
applications before me prosecuting counsel is Mr Nankhuni, instead
counsel Nkhono appeared on his behalf. No reason
was given why
counsel Nankhuni was unable to appear in person to prosecute the
applications. Counsel for the state had no information
position of the case. Therefore her submission that the state had no
objection to bail being granted was not on
It is recognized
that under section 42 of the Constitution bail is a constitutional
right. However, it is not an absolute right.
prosecuting counsel and counsel for the state have to be serious in
their respective roles. Again court should
not create a walk-through
or a mere-formality atmosphere on a bail application. To make it
clearer a court should not merely
rubber stamp the granting of bail
without satisfying itself that bail is merited.
In conclusion bail
Chambers on this 13th
day of Jul, 2007 at Lilongwe.
U D G E