The powers in section 24 can best be described as investigative powers of a draconian nature. They give the Attorney General wide-ranging powers of investigation backed by criminal liability as a sanction for non-cooperation. The powers include a power of search and seizure by entering the premises of private individuals. It seems to me that there is a marked difference in the nature of these powers when compared with those functions of the Attorney General which it has been established should not be subject to judicial review. When carrying out those functions e.g. consent to prosecution, deciding whether or not a prosecution should be taken, entering a nolle prosequi and so on he is acting in his own right as Attorney General and those powers are of such a nature that it would be quite absurd to allow a Court to interfere with his discretion. His principal function there is either to authorise prosecution or to prosecute offences in the knowledge that defendants will have full opportunity in defending themselves and be able to exercise their full rights under the law.