STATUTES REQUIRING CONSTITUTIONAL ALIGNMENT __________________________________________________________________________________ 31. Immigration Act [Chapter 4:02] The Act needs to be amended in the following respects: • To prohibit the detention of a suspected prohibited person for more than 48 hours unless the person is brought before a court and an order obtained for his or her further detention. This is required by section 50(2) of the Constitution. Under section 8 of the Act, such persons can be detained for up to 14 days. • To permit a court to order the release on bail of a suspected prohibited person who has been arrested – and who under section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution is entitled to release unless there are compelling reasons for his or her continued detention. • To accord persons arrested under the Act all the other rights to which they are entitled under section 50 of the Constitution, including the right to contact lawyers, friends, etc. 32. Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act [Chapter 14:33]* Much of this Act is invalidated by section 64 of the Constitution. Particular trades and occupations cannot be reserved for particular racial groups. Furthermore, the regulatory powers which the Act confers on the responsible Minister are too wide and vague: they amount to a delegation by Parliament of its primary law-making power, which is prohibited by section 134(a) of the Constitution. 33. Inebriates Act [Chapter 9:11] This Act allows courts which convict habitual drunkards (“inebriates”) of any offence to order them to be detained in an “inebriates reformatory” for up to three years – in addition to any sentence that may be imposed on them for the offence. However desirable it may be to remove inebriates from society, the Act seems drastic – unconstitutionally so. An order of detention under the Act is undoubtedly a sentence, and could well amount to a disproportionate sentence if the inebriate is convicted of a relatively trivial offence. Also, there is no provision in the Act for an order to be revoked if the inebriate is cured of his or her alcoholism, so orders cannot be equated with treatment: they seem to be essentially punitive. The Act should be repealed. There are adequate powers under the Mental Health Act to detain alcoholics who are mentally disordered, as many of them are. 34. Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:04] Part IV of this Act provides for an insolvent and other people to be interrogated at meetings of creditors, and section 68(4) states that no one so interrogated is entitled to refuse to answer a question on the ground that it might incriminate him or her, while section 68(8) goes on to say that evidence elicited at such an interrogation is admissible in any proceedings instituted against the person who gave it. Under section 69 of the Act, a person who refuses to answer a question can be detained in prison until he or she answers it. These provisions are quite obviously unconstitutional in that they violate the right to silence and the right against self-incrimination. 35. Intellectual Property Tribunal Act [Chapter 26:08]* Clause 5 of the Judicial Laws Amendment (Ease of Settling Commercial and Other Disputes) Bill, 2016, states that “for the avoidance of doubt” the Intellectual Property 11