STANDING IN THE DOCK

May 27, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

At the onset, let me make it clear that I am not commenting on the merits of the private charges that have been filed against the former President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo.

These charges, I wish to remind our readers, were filed before the elections, and therefore are not a product of the outcome of those elections. They were filed by attorney at law, Christopher Ram, in his capacity as a private citizen. They were not filed by the incoming government. As with all such charges, they can be reviewed and recalled by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The charges relate to something that the former President is alleged to have said at a political rally. There is a presumption of innocence, as in all matters.

I am also not in this column engaging in any discussions about the evidence that supports the case or, for that matter, any possible defence that is likely to be offered in the case.

Today, I am more concerned with an important principle that the case represents: equality before the law. This case reminds us that no one is so powerful as to avoid being subject to the laws of the country and to appear before the judicial authorities.

It is true that the immunities granted to the President do not allow the office holder of the seat of the Presidency to be subject to prosecution for offences committed while in office.  Burnham had enjoyed immunities for acts committed while in office and while out of office. But during the Constitutional Reform Process of 2001 under the Jagdeo regime, these powers were pared. The immunity from prosecution is now only permissible in relation to offences committed while in office. The law allows for former Presidents to be brought before the Courts for offences committed while out of office.

There were many who had felt that Presidents should not enjoy any immunity from prosecution. The argument was made that indeed it is while in power that politicians may be prone to excesses. As such, it was contended, that for any leader to be guaranteed immunity from prosecution would only encourage malfeasance and excesses.

It was further argued that the very idea of immunity for acts committed while in power is in contradiction with the principle of equality before the law, which asserts that everyone should be afforded the protection of the law and be subject to that law.

Indeed throughout Latin America, solid-cast presidential immunities are being overturned by the judicial authorities. The case at Whim is not about testing the constitutionality of immunities enjoyed by the President.

This columnist had disagreed with those who were proposing constitutional changes to remove the presidential immunities in Guyana. I had argued that to do so would expose our President to all manner of frivolous charges by private citizens. This would demean the highest Executive Office in our land. In fact this was one of the principal reasons why the immunities for acts committed while in office were retained during the constitutional reform process.

The appearance of former President Bharrat Jagdeo in a courtroom to answer private criminal charges filed, not by the State, but by a private citizen, like himself, is a powerful statement that equality before the law is alive and well. It is something that we should preserve, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings.

The sight of the former President standing in the dock of the Courtroom reminds us of that powerful principle that subjects us all to the law and to its protection.

May it be preserved!