Presidential immunity does not cover all of Jagdeo’s actions

Mar 17, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
In a letter in Kaieteur News dated March 12, 2017 and captioned, “Mr. Jagdeo has constitutional immunities”, ex AG Mr, Anil Nandlall said “A former president who has constitutional immunities from the criminal legal process during the tenure of his presidency, was arrested in relation to acts done while those immunities were in force. This arrest is manifestly unlawful. He was detained for questioning. The detention is equally unlawful”.
First if the learned Attorney-at- law, Anil Nandlall firmly believes that the arrest was unconstitutional then let the legal games begin. I expect to see him institute legal action. Or forever hold his tongue. The ball is firmly in his court. Secondly I do not begin to assume that I can at present match the vast knowledge possessed by Anil. I do have a degree in sociology and a degree in law.
So let’s examine the relevant articles from a logical point of view. Article 182 (1) states: “Subject to the provisions of article 180, the holder of the office of President shall not be personally answerable to any court for the performance of the functions of his office or for any act done in the performance of those functions and no proceedings, whether criminal or civil, shall be instituted against him in his personal capacity in respect thereof either during his term of office or thereafter.”
Note the words “the holder of the office of President shall not be personally answerable to any court”. Note he is not answerable. I doubt anyone would attempt to interpret this differently. Also note carefully the word “hereafter” and see what sense you can gather from it in the context it was written. I conclude it means he cannot be taken to court even after he demits office.
Now let’s look at Article 182 (2) “Whilst any person holds or performs the functions of the office of President no criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his private capacity and no civil proceedings shall be instituted or continued in respect of which relief is claimed against him for anything done or omitted to be done in his private capacity.”
The wording here is very different. It does not speak of not “personally liable” but states “no criminal proceedings shall be instituted against him” while holding or performing the office of President. Now if the constitution wanted the same to apply they could have just added the private aspect to the previous section or utilise the same wording. We need therefore to examine the choice of words. “Whilst any person holds or performs the functions of the office of President no criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him.”
This sentence does not say he is not personally liable. It simply says no one can take him to court while he occupies the office. Note carefully the section does not have the word “hereafter”. Should this inform us of something? Anil can inform us if this word has a significance which would say something to us if it’s omitted.
But if we are not convinced we need to explain the additional section, i.e. 182 (3), “Where provision is made by law limiting the time within which proceedings of any description may be brought against any person, the period during which any person holds or performs the functions of the office of President shall not be taken into account in calculating any period of time prescribed by that law for bringing any such proceedings as are mentioned in paragraph (2) against him.”
This specifically refers to paragraph (2) And what it does is to say if for instance the president in his private capacity breaks the law and the statute of limitation is three years for the particular offence and the president hold office for five more years then those five years would not be counted but the count would start on the day he demits office. I hope the learned Nandlall could explain to us the need for such a clause if indeed the President is absolutely free from any possibility of prosecution. I am hoping that the learned Attorney can educate us with his submissions to refute my opinion stated here. And again I challenge Mr Nandlall to take the arrest of Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo to the court and let’s clear this matter once and for all.
Rajendra Bisessar

Latest News

Presidential immunity does not cover all of Jagdeo’s actions

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Corbin century, fast-bowlers give CCC lead as champs face stern Day 3...

Powerlifting to kick off year with...

North Essequibo cart off ECB Busta-sponsored T20...

Construction progress of five New Stadiums,...

Inclement weather forces BCB to halt cricket...

EBDCA/D&R Construction 40-Over Cricket...

Features/Columnists

What Guyanese leaders can learn from Donald Trump

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

VP Jagdeo on PPP comrades benefitting

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Presidential immunity does not cover all of Jagdeo’s actions

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 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 […]