Drafters mull changes to agencies, courts
A clause has been inserted in the new charter that would result in a significant transfer of case deliberation and sentencing from the Election Commission (EC) and National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to the Appeal Courts, charter drafters concluded
An article stated that cases of general electoral fraud would be examined and sentenced by the central Appeal Court, while local election cases would be handled by the regional Appeal Courts.
There is also consensus that the power to deliberate and rule over public officials’ asset concealment cases would be transferred from the anti-graft committee to the Appeal Court.
There is general agreement among the public that independent organisations had in the past often been politicised and used as political tools.
This had resulted in speculation and public outcry for the reform of independent organisations. However, opinion was split on whether independent organisations should be empowered, or weakened.
The Constitutional Drafting Committee (CDC)’s agenda that had been inserted into the new charter yesterday provided a strong indication that, most likely, their power should be reduced.
The CDC also spent time debating reform of the Supreme Court. Most of charter drafters proposed the Supreme Court did not need to write an explanation in all cases to save time and workload. This article is unlike any in the previous constitution where the Supreme Court was obliged to state why it would not take a case.
The article stated that “cases that will be deliberated by the Supreme Court must be approved by the Supreme Court, unless it is the type of case that is stated by the constitution or rules of law that it can be directly submitted to the Supreme Court, or it is stated in the constitution of the rights to appeal against the ruling or Appeal Court’s order”.
A majority of CDC members believed the Supreme Court need not compile an explanation report for cases it decides not to take up, as part of an effort to speed up the legal process and reduce the workload of Supreme Court judges.
However, some CDC members objected, saying that such a proposal might strip citizens of their right to appeal to the Supreme Court. One member said it sometimes takes more than a decade for a case to be decided. “Delay [in the legal process], means injustice,” the member stated.
