Latest update September 27th, 2026 10:40 AM
Latest News
- ExxonMobil pushes back against calls for ring-fencing new oil projects
- All overpayments recovered or cleared by contractors, Auditor General reveals
- Fuel prices jump 13% at Guyoil
- Iran insists on diplomatic solution after Trump rejects peace plan
- GCAA warns animal owners: Runway trespass could mean $1M fine, jail
Constitutional immunity should not mean impunity
Dear Editor,
This is a question that has been asked since the days of Comrade Burnham’s presidency. In the U.S. former presidents can be convicted and sent to prison with the supreme court not omitting sitting presidents by the exclusion of absolute and unqualified immunity; and in the UK a sitting prime minister can be arrested, charged, and imprisoned for criminal offenses. (Reference: Cornell Law School and The Week). In Guyana can we the people investigate, arrest, charge, convict and imprison a sitting president? According to our constitution a sitting president has absolute immunity, a feature that Comrade Burnham leveraged to sustain his squatting in office. However, the constitution does allow for the impeachment and removal of a sitting president. This also allows for post presidency prosecution for crimes committed outside of a president’s official capacity.
Why is the question of whether a president of our country can be imprisoned pertinent today? We have seen and heard of the serious allegations raised by the opposition against Comrade Ali and members of his cabinet. To date no action has been taken in the National Assembly to investigate the President. Even less has been done concerning members of his cabinet who also face serious allegations of corruption and gross misconduct in office. In the case of the president half of the National Assembly must vote for an investigation of the President to begin. Given the current makeup of the National Assembly and the additional allegations affecting members of the PPP it is unlikely that half of the National Assembly’s members will vote in favour of starting an investigation into the conduct of the President. Only with a change in the makeup of the National Assembly will this become possible. An issue that also made it difficult to remove Comrade Burnham from office.
However, if there are charges raised against the president that violate international law and places the president in a similar situation as that of former president Maduro of Venezuela, the president can be charged, prosecuted, and imprisoned by an external government. How likely is it that this will occur? Only the U.S. government has the answer. After all, 19 charges of corruption were dropped and Canada’s position changed after Comrade Ali was sworn into office. There is also no indication that the chambers of the attorney general will act independent of the president or against him or any other member of the cabinet. The other agencies in our country have also been restrained in their efforts to carry out justice as seen in the Dharamlall abuse case, Mahdia Fire & Ministry of Education COI, and Comrade Jagdeo’s Su-Gate. Does the opposition have the will and the credibility to gain the interest and support of the U.S. and other first world nations? The severity of the allegations against the president to achieve this must be substantial enough to do so, and it must be in the interest of those nations to act. Otherwise, we may have to go through another waiting period for justice similar to that experienced under Comrade Burnham. The party colours and names have changed, but the approach to governance that enriches the incumbents remains familiar. Shame on those who have ruined the good name of Comrade Jagan!
Sincerely,
Jamil Changlee
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
