The right to a fair trial

Abstract

None provided. The following is taken from the author's Introduction:

The fundamental right to a fair trial is well established around the globe, particularly in international conventions and in countries with a human rights culture. To give effect to the right to a fair trial, some countries like America guarantee a speedy trial whilst others, including Namibia, only require a fair trial within a reasonable time. Also, differences exist in remedies provided for in case of breach. For example, a stay of prosecution is regarded as the only remedy, in such circumstances, in Canada and America whereas, in Namibia, the Constitution provides for a specific remedy that "... the accused shall be released. ". As it will be seen later in my exposition, there has been controversy over the content of the remedy provided for in Art 12 (1) (b) of the Constitution. This pertains especially to the interpretation of the words or phrases such as "released" and "within a reasonable time". Does release entail a stay of prosecution or release from custody or from onerous bail conditions? How long is exactly a reasonable time?

It is thus against this background that I intend to look into this area of the law to argue for an interpretation of the word "released" in sub-Article 12 (1) (b) which is not narrow, rigid or artificial; an interpretation which would bring an end to the controversy surounding sub-Article 12 (1) (b) and which promotes legal certainty and clarity