Mr. Niall Scully and agent Nicole Franchette have threatened to lock him up for life if he did not provide certain information to them. However, it is apparent that the said exhibit is not with the officers of the NDEA but with the SSCRB (Scientific Support and Crime Record Bureau) and therefore the allegation has no bearing on officers of the SSCRB in whose custody the exhibit is at present as per the affidavit of CSP Reginald Elizabeth. [6] Learned counsel next contended that the respondent’s constitutional right in terms of article 19 (2) (g) of the Constitution was being infringed as this application was intended to self incriminate the respondent. The application before court has nothing to do with article 19 (2) (g) of the Constitution as article 19(2) (g) relates to procedure during trial. [7] The law as contained in section 30 B (1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the taking of samples both intimate and non intimate during investigations and regulates the procedure as to how it should be done, therefore it cannot be said that the respondent’s right to privacy has been affected. The law specifies that investigating officers could seek the necessary orders from court in respect of the obtaining of samples during the process of investigation. Further this court is satisfied that investigations could continue in any matter even though charges are framed against an accused. [8] For the purposes of record it is brought to the notice of learned counsel Mrs. Amesbury that on the 2nd of July 2014 her submissions had been recorded but it appears that learned counsel for the applicant’s submissions had not been clearly recorded. [9] On the facts before court as set out in the application and supporting affidavits this court is satisfied that this is a matter that should be considered with a degree of urgency as it involves investigative procedure. This court is satisfied that the application is made in respect of a serious offence and the taking of the sample will help the investigating officers confirm or disprove the respondent’s involvement in the said offence. I am satisfied that the application has the necessary authorization as required by law and although a finger print sample has already been taken for the purposes of record a further sample is required for investigative and forensic purposes. [10] I therefore make order authorising the taking of the finger print sample for the required purpose from the respondent. The respondent is informed of the order in open court. 3