The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

SUPREME Court judge Deborah Fraser yesterday ruled that a rape accused’s voluntary bill of indictment was not valid as it was signed by an African prosecutor who was rejected for practice at the Bahamas Bar.

Her ruling could result in several court cases being sent back to Magistrate’s Court if the VBIs the accused were served were signed by Ugandan native David Bakininga or another African prosecutor working in the Department of Public Prosecutions, neither of whom have  been approved by the Bahamas Bar Association for practice.

In July attorney David Cash challenged the validity of his client’s VBI after arguing that Mr Bakininga, who is the assistant director of public prosecutions, erred in law when he signed the VBI of his client, Cannes Villus, who is charged with four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse.

Yesterday, Justice Fraser noted that Mr Cash’s submissions highlighted the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that only the attorney general or a legal practitioner acting on his behalf can sign Voluntary BilIs of Indictment. She said Mr Cash contended that because Mr Bakibinga has been denied the right to practice by the Bahamas Bar Association, he could not be considered a legal practitioner in the country.

“It is clear from the words of the relevant statutes...considered by this court that the intention of Parliament was to ensure that the person who exercises functions under section 258 of the CPC are appointed in accordance with the Constitution,” she said.

“The court finds that section 258 of the CPC is not in contravention of the Constitution. “Therefore, in order for the VBI to have been signed in accordance with the laws of this jurisdiction, the person who signed the same ought to have been the director of public prosecutions, or a person (acting on behalf of) the director of public prosecutions who is a legal public officer or legal practitioner in accordance with the CPC.”

 Justice Fraser said in view of this fact, the court found that the person who signed Villus’ VBI “could not validly sign the same” as he did not possess the qualifications specified under the country’s laws.

 “The matter is therefore remitted to the Magistrate’s Court,” she ruled.