By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

filing of statements could not be said to have contravened any rules of procedure.In ground eight the appellant complains against the refusal by the respondents togive him a copy of the report of the commission Mr. Mono began by opposingthat complaint but after some verbal tussle he concede that the appellant wasentitled to a copy of the reportArticle 110 of the Constitution does not expressly require nor prohibit thecommission or the president to provide a copy of the commission report to thejudge under inquiry. While we are attracted to the appellant submission that if athing had not been specifically prohibited by a statute then it is allowed wehesitate to formulated a principle that broad. We are however of the view thatreleasing a copy of the commission’s report to the appellant in this case wouldnot have been unconstitutionalIn criminal trials an accuse persons can apply for a copy of the judgment andmay even want it to be in his own language and section 313 of the Criminalprocedure Act 1985 decrees that it shall be given to him without delay Admittedlythis was not a criminal trial. However it was a quasi-judicial criminal inquiry. Wewere given to understand by the appellant that there was a panel of threecommissioners all of whom were judges a prosecutor that the appellant defendedhimself though nothing would have stopped him from retaining a counsel and thatwitnesses were summoned and subjected to the same procedure as the oneunder the criminal procedure Act 1985 in trials In such circumstances would itbe irregular to adopt the said section 313 and deliver a copy of the report to the383