Opposition home affairs spokesman Gavin Gulia said yesterday that the opposition backed most of the provisions of a Bill amending the Criminal Code but it would vote in committee against three measures which were of concern.

The first was a requirement for magistrates to seek the authorisation of the Chief Justice before conducting inquiries, unless such inquiries were requested by the police or the Attorney General.

The opposition did not see the need for this amendment and could not understand why it was being moved. Did the government not have confidence in the magistrates?

The opposition felt magistrates should remain free to hold inquiries even on the basis of applications by private individuals, as was the case at present.

The opposition also felt this amendment was humiliating to magistrates and an embarrassment to the Chief Justice who had to decide whether or not to accept requests by magistrates. It therefore felt that this amendment should be withdrawn.

The current system should be retained, with the Attorney General able to decide whether to take further action on the basis of the outcome of the magistrate's inquiries. The process should not be stopped before it even started.

Justice had to be seen to be done, Dr Gulia said, and if this amendment became law, it would be revoked by a Labour government within six months.

Dr Gulia said the second objection was over an amendment on the granting of bail, because this also constituted an attack on magistrates.

In terms of the Bill, repeat offenders accused of serious crime would not be eligible for bail for three months. The accused may however file an application for bail without those three months before a judge.

Dr Gulia asked why it should be a judge, rather than a magistrate, who would decide such an application. Was this another case of lack of confidence in the magistrates? And what benefit would there be in refusing bail for three months?

Dr Gulia stressed that he was not saying that all accused should be granted bail, but that such decisions should be left to the magistrates.

This amendment, too, would be revoked by a Labour government within six months of taking office, unless it was declared null by the Constitutional Court on the basis of the decisions taken in the case Godfrey Ellul vs the Attorney General.

Dr Gulia said the third objection was over the amendment removing the mandatory requirement of corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice. This amendment could be dangerous and eroded the rights of the accused, Dr Gulia said. It might therefore be a violation of human rights.

It was worth noting that, in terms of this Bill, no corroboration would be required in trials by jury, but corroboration would be needed before the inferior courts. Did the government believe in what it was doing, or not?

This too, would be a measure which the Labour government would remove in six months.

He said that the Bill also included positive factors which the opposition supported.

The opposition backed an increase in fines for crimes motivated by racism. This was a timely amendment in view of the recent acts of vandalism which appeared to be inspired by racism. Apart from the attacks made against property belonging to the Jesuits, their employees and journalists, there were also politicians who even received death threats.

All speakers on this Bill should declare themselves against racism and in favour of this clause.

The police, Dr Gulia said, should be more transparent in their investigations because the people were asking questions. And although there had been a number of arrests, no one had yet been caught. The people, who in their majority were against racism, wanted to see results.

Referring to an amendment removing mandatory imprisonment in case of drug sharing Dr Gulia said this was a very sensitive issue and the government had taken up the opposition's request for a debate in the Social Affairs Committee (SAC).

Following that debate, and agreement, in committee, the issue was now before the House. Safeguards were being put in place to prevent traffickers from using this amendment to their benefit.

Dr Gulia said that other amendments proposed by the SAC should be revisited in future to see what further changes could be introduced to continue eliminating injustices.

Also positive was the amendment on the suspension of the execution of judgment pending an appeal.

Also positive was the amendment through which a judge or a magistrate could order the accused in a criminal case to pay damages to the victim of a crime.