NOORDALLY VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL & DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Noordally v Attorney General [1986] MR 204 where, inter alia, Section 3 of

the Constitution, which provides for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the
individual, was in question.
The applicant was arrested after he was suspected of being in possession of heroin.
He was denied bail on the basis of S 46 (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1986 and
sought a declaration that this provision was in violation of sections 3 and 5 of the
Constitution.
It was held that:
S 5 indicates that the suspect remaining at large is the rule, his detention on the
ground of
suspicion is the exception and he must be tried within a reasonable time or be
released.
It is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the constitution to legislate so as
to allow
the executive to overstep the Judiciary' s role in ensuring the citizen the protection
afforded by law.
Within the framework of the Constitution, Parliament' s right to legislate remains
unfettered and a law, which passes the test of constitutionality cannot be questioned.
The Court's power to control the Executive in accordance with its constitutional role
also
remains unfettered.
Therefore, S 46 (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1986 is void.