Presidents are not above the law

Feb 12, 2013 Letters

Dear Editor,
According to Guyana’s fraudulent constitution, the President cannot be taken to court and his actions cannot be inquired into. That is malarkey and a foolish, narrow interpretation of any nation’s constitution that would be rejected in the U.S. Even the American President can be challenged in court and the American Supreme Court did rule against the president on several occasions.
Bill Clinton had to face the court. Nixon was taken to court and the court ruled against him. A constitution has to be flexible to meet the changing times and a President can be taken to court.
If a President violates the law, shouldn’t he be taken to court and prosecuted? A court’s ruling in Trinidad has rendered the absolute power of a President as a myth. Presidents can be taken to court even if the constitution says their actions cannot be questioned.
The President in Trinidad was taken to court over a year ago for revoking an official’s appointment. The Judge ruled against the President.
The judge ruled that the President cannot fire people without due process. In terminating an official appointment without due process, the President violated the person’s right to natural justice. In so doing, the ruling reinforces a principle that a President is not above the law and that his actions can be challenged in court, even if the constitution states he is not answerable in court as stated in the Burnham constitution. A person’s individual rights and natural rights supersede that of a President or a government.
The case involved President Maxwell Richards revoking the appointment of Nizam Mohammed as Chair of the Police Service Commission. In his then capacity as Chairman, Mohammed queried the unacceptable demography of the hierarchical positions of the Police Service Commission, saying Indians were discriminated against, and announced that the PSC would bring ethnic balance in the police service. It led to a storm of political complaints, triggering the President’s revocation of Mohammed’s appointment as Chair.
The High Court ruled that Mohammed’s right was violated. He was fired without being given a hearing. The President was supposed to be an impartial adjudicator, but failed to give Mohammed a hearing. It was an abuse of process, said the court.
The president did not convene a tribunal to investigate the complaint against Mohammed. The President simply acted out of public and governmental pressure. Such an action is no different from an accused
being rendered guilty without a trial or because of public opinion.
So the judge’s ruling overturning Mohammed’s dismissal from his Chairman post is a correct one in law. Unfortunately, the judge’s ruling cannot be enforced and as such would have no effect on the appointment, because someone else has replaced Mohammed as Chair of the PSC.
A NACTA opinion survey was conducted on the President’s action. A large majority disagreed with the President’s action to revoke Mohammed, particularly without the procedure being followed to revoke an appointment.
Since Mohammed cannot be restored to the post from which he was terminated, some kind of consolation should be offered, like financial compensation, as though he was still in the position. In America, that would have been the ruling, and in fact, the person would have been ordered restored to the post. An apology would also be appropriate.
I should note that in another case, a judge ruled that due process rules were also not followed in the Panday prosecution (for failure to declare his bank account). As the judge rightly ruled, Panday was not given due process by the Integrity Commission.
A tribunal was not established to judge him. Instead, he was deliberately referred to the DPP’s Office for prosecution for political reasons. The Judge correctly terminated the case against Panday, but the DPP is appealing.
The judge in the Nizam Mohammed case may have been influenced by the Panday ruling of having the tribunal first give Nizam a hearing. What the ruling suggests is that proper procedures in terminating people need to be followed and Presidents are not above the law and citizens should take them to court if their rights are violated.
Vishnu Bisram

Latest News

Presidents are not above the law

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

GPF arrests Presidential Guards by 48 runs as cricket action gets...

Superbet supports One Guyana 3×3 Quest

FIDE Master Drayton outclasses strong competition...

Wiltshire, Chris dominoes tourney set for March

Houston Sec’, New Central, Saints sent packing

Charles’ all-round performance helps EBDCA U23...

Features/Columnists

“One Guyana” is no less a national slogan than “Green Guyana”

If Guyana’s President Ali is the “Zelensky of the Caribbean”, who is the Putin?

Partner v. investor

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Presidents are not above the law

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]