It has been averred by the Ministry that there is no other land on that area to provide an alternative access to the properties of these 8 families, other than over the petitioner’s land. The petition is dismissed. There will however be no order for costs. VII. Case 8/2001 Philip Amukhobe Imbumi Versus The Republic Referral from the Supreme Court under article 46.7 of the Constitution, for determination is whether the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 14 d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act contravenes article 19.2 g) of the Constitution. If the defendant wishes to challenge the allegation that he’s a trafficker he must do so during the trial. It would then fall on the accused to prepare his defence…before the presumption operates, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had possession of the drugs and that he had knowledge that what he was possessing was controlled drugs. The Constitutional protection given to an accused person is from being convicted for an offence upon his own evidence. Section 14 d) of the Act is no law against a person pleading guilty to confess. For purposes of article 19.2 g) of the Constitution the confessing of guilt conveys self incrimination, however Section 14.2 b) of the Act requires the accused not to confess guilt but to rebut a presumption that he is a trafficker in drugs. Hence it is a provision which gives him an opportunity, not to inculpate himself, but to exculpate himself. The presumptions in the Act do not relieve the prosecution against an accused person; they do not relieve the prosecution from the task of proving all the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. They simply shift the evidential burden on the accused. Accordingly the Constitutional presumption of trafficking under section 14.d) does not contravene article 19.2 g) of the Constitution.