There are worrying signs in the justice support chain. The judiciary has complained it lacks the necessary tools and resources to work, even warning that the justice system is on the brink of collapse.
Court exhibits, which can make or break a case, have disappeared. And botched police prosecutions do not help. Bungling a court case may well get a guilty person off the hook.
However, rushing to prosecute without having a solid case can, at best, embarrass a person and, at worst, cause them serious problems on many fronts, as two Indian nationals have just found out.
They were charged with submitting forged lease agreements and kept in preventive custody for a month and a half before they were acquitted.
After hearing evidence – which, of course, was available to the police in advance – the presiding magistrate concluded the accused were unaware the documents were fake. The mens rea, the intent to commit a crime, was missing. It seems this was very clear, but the investigating officer missed it all.
The prosecution based its case on witnesses who were not clear as to which entity they represented. It relied on copies, not original documents, and accepted “assertions” – the court’s words – that these were false without any proof to show they were indeed such.
Another classical case of the police deciding to shoot first and ask questions later. They rush to prosecute – perhaps in a frenzied PR exercise to show society that, in contrast to criticism with regard to certain (high profile) cases, they do not tire taking people to court – and then let the court decide. What matters, it now seems evident, to the police leadership and their political masters is that, when number-crunching time comes, the number of prosecutions and ‘solved’ cases appear satisfactory and praiseworthy. And ‘solved’ cases usually mean those taken to court but not necessarily being successful prosecuted leading to conviction.
The case of the two Indian nationals is yet another sad episode where the police ‘act’ on reports without verifying them, march the ‘suspects’ to court, humiliate them and then accept an acquittal without even an apology.
The police have a duty to investigate reports they receive, including sifting through documents and other exhibits to ensure there is indeed a case.
In terms of the Police Act, it is “an offence against discipline for a police officer to charge a person before the courts with an offence which is manifestly unfounded”.
The keyword is “manifestly”.
Black’s law dictionary defines it as meaning “indisputably”, “self-evidently”, “clearly and needing no proof”. Manifesta probatione non indigent, obvious facts need no proof.
In the case mentioned above, the presiding magistrate required little time to realise what was amply clear, though not to the prosecuting officer.The courts have long been telling the police not to expect them to do their duty. That happened both during sittings and also in judgments. Suffice to mention just one, handed down in January 2021 by the magistrates’ court.
Noting it was becoming a habit for the police to press charges against individuals without investigating, the presiding magistrate reminded the police it is them and not the person making a report who decide whether to prosecute an individual.
Botched prosecutions may well be the result of the police force wanting to ensure justice is seen to be done.
Still, as eminent jurists would tell you, though good to show justice is being done what is crucial is that justice is done.