Bring the Honorable Member to Court

I have read with extreme disbelief the excerpts of the letter from the hon. Member for Bawku Central to the Special Prosecutor's Office, which seeks to explain how and why the Honorable Member will not be able to respond to the invitation of the Mr. Amidu.

"My inability to honor your invitation is due to the fact that the Parliament is in session and that it will sit this Tuesday, June 4, 2019", reads in the letter of Mr. Ayariga evoked by Graphic Online.

For discussion purposes, if the law can exempt a parliamentarian suspected of being arrested on the way to work, at work or on the way back to work, it could just as easily give way to equally important contributors, such as Farmers. , teachers, doctors, among others.

To the extent that the privileges and concessions of parliamentarians are based on the Constitution of Ghana, it would be somewhat sophistic for a person or group of people to badert that the immunity of parliamentarians to be arrested without the knowledge of the prior knowledge of the Speaker of Parliament and without his inconvenient permission in the fight against corruption.

In theory, under parliamentary privilege, a parliamentarian is safe from calling a court or arrest without prior knowledge and without the permission of the Speaker of Parliament. This may seem controversial, the provision is somehow summarized in the Constitution of Ghana.

In fact, some of us belong to schools of thought that vehemently support that parliamentary privilege is outmoded and must be removed and thrown away accordingly.

After all, are not we all equal before the law? Yes, no one is above the law.

To the extent that the controversial concession has been incorporated into the constitution to address potential obstacles and allow parliamentarians to carry out their tasks in a transparent manner, this provision somehow confers on a section of the population a freedom without barriers.

We recognize that our representatives in parliament play a very important role in nation-building. But the overriding question is: are their roles more important than those of farmer, teacher, doctor, among others?

In one way or another, defenders of the seemingly outdated provision claim that without immunity, parliamentarians could be prevented from discharging their important duty through prosecution. civil and criminal apparently suspicious.

In fact, such a point of view is not irrational. But my contention is that parliamentarians are not the only relevant nation-building actors who need special protection in the performance of their duties.

Why should we allow part of the population to commit crimes and hide behind the law?

Note, parliamentary privilege has never been designed to help parliamentarians escape criminal law, but was instead enshrined in the constitution to give parliamentarians immunity from unnecessary civil suits for defamation in the United States. exercise of their parliamentary functions.

However, let us remember that this provision was removed from British parliamentary privilege and transposed and gave meaning to our constitution.

However, the crucial question is: do the authors of the seemingly controversial provision find it always cautious and expeditious?

A few years ago, three British Labor MPs were accused of falsifying their spending on parliamentary expenses.

However, they deny the offenses and try their best to avoid a criminal trial by invoking the 1689 Bill of Rights which gives oxygen to parliamentary privilege.

Suffice it to say that parliamentary privilege prevents MPs and their peers from being sued for defamation.

How can members then attempt to invoke parliamentary privilege in criminal prosecutions under the law of theft?

Obviously, they sought to hide behind parliamentary privilege, which, in my opinion, constituted an abuse of privilege.

Despite their desperate attempts to seek refuge in parliamentary privilege, the judge found them guilty and sentenced to prison terms. Their sentence ranged from 18 months to 12 months.

It should be noted, however, that the modern understanding of parliamentary privilege is related to the immunity from jurisdiction for what is said in the House of Commons.

And more so, it has a broader historical significance, summed up in the evolution of the British constitution that may be open to legal interpretation.

The origins of parliamentary privilege

Parliamentary privilege dates back to the English Civil War, when Parliament fought for the right to self-government and independence from the monarchy.

However, it was not until 1689, when the Bill of Rights established the rights of Parliament after the so-called glorious revolution, that it was enshrined in the law.

For example, Article 9 of the Charter of Rights states that "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament shall not be attacked or challenged in any court or place outside Parliament".

At the time, the law was subject to the whims and caprices of the king. Suffice it to say that it was the interference of the sovereign that Parliament wanted to get rid of. Parliament has forced parliamentarians to account by applying its own strict laws, alongside criminal and civil courts. Needless to say, at the time, the rule of parliament was absolute.

Have the rules of parliamentary privilege changed?

Apparently, the twilight of the monarchy has allowed Parliament to surrender some of its jurisdiction to the courts.

As a result, MPs accused of criminal offenses are no longer tried by the House of Commons but by the full force of the law.

For example, since 1979, no less than 10 deputies have been sent to prison, generally for not having paid the fines incurred during political demonstrations in Northern Ireland.

However, parliamentary privilege still grants MPs the immunity of being arrested for civil cases in the precincts of the Westminster Palace.

MP Damian Green was recently arrested by the Metropolitan Police at his home in his constituency for "complicity in reprehensible conduct in the performance of his duties" and "conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office" .

However, after the arrest of MP Damian in December 2008, Michael Martin, Speaker of Parliament at the time, explained his actions in the House of Commons, explaining to MPs that parliamentary privilege had never prevented the application of criminal law.

He referred to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privileges which, in its 1999 report, stated that the premises of the House were not and should not be "a refuge from the law" (Source: independent.co. uk) ".

However, in most jurisdictions, laws are enforced fairly. Indeed, everyone could face the laws without any recourse to his status in society.

Take, for example, not long ago, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was forced to resign after being removed from office by the country's highest judicial body.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has dismissed Sharif after an overwhelming corruption investigation into his family's badets.

The investigation panel claimed that his family was unable to justify his great wealth, which led the court to order a criminal investigation (guardian.co.uk, 28/07/2017).

In addition, a few years ago, former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva, cited as the most famous president of contemporary Brazilian history, was sentenced to nine years and six months in prison after being found guilty of corruption and money. laundering charges (Source: guardian.co.uk, 07/12/2017).

And in recent times, the controversial South Korean President Park Geun-hye has been found involved in a huge scandal of corruption and cronyism that led to her dismissal in March 2017.

President Park Geun-hye and her long-time confidante, Choi Soon-sil, have been accused of conspiring to put pressure on companies, including Samsung, so that they give large sums of money. money to two nonprofit foundations created by Choi.

Choi was accused of using the money for personal purposes, which she denied. However, President Park admitted to having "naïve" behavior, but denied having forced the companies.

President Park has also been accused of giving Choi illegal access to state affairs and allowing him to influence the policy, including Seoul's stance on the program. nuclear weaponry of North Korea (The Guardian 2017).

In summary, the immunity of parliamentarians from arresting or summoning a tribunal is archaic and unfair. So let us finish it. Modify or remove the seemingly irrational provision and replace it with an innovative and timely right.

K. Badu, United Kingdom.

K. Badu, United Kingdom.

[email protected]