immunity
Presidential Immunity
Immunity from prosecution is provided to elected leaders, head of states and other officials either for life or during their time in office, in many legal and constitutional systems. This may only be connected to matters directly related to office, or it may be for any prosecution. This immunity drive its origin from English common law based on doctrine that “rex non potest peccare” means the king (or queen) can do no wrong and the King could not be sued in his own courts.
Historically Pope Gelasius (I) established sovereign immunity as a political principle, as a mean to protect the sovereign pontiff and Holy See from trials and persecutions.
The same concept was adopted in many countries as French presidential office carries with it, the immunity from all prosecution while the president remains in office. In the U.K. parliamentary immunity operates so that Members of Parliament cannot be sued for libel for what they say in Parliament. The USA also follows the suit and adopted the same concept in the constitution. The Constitution of Pakistan Article 248 also provides presidential immunity during his term of office.
Due to democratic and human rights activist these immunities are challenged and now theoretically, there are compelling arguments for both proponents and opponents of the presidential, sovereign and head of state’s immunity.
On one hand proponents argue that
• Immunity allows the president, head of state etc to remain focused on serving his office effectively.
• It is cardinal principle of justice that accused would receive a fair and impartial trial and it is very difficult when the accused holds public office. As being head of state he has an active involvement in the executive or legislative branches, will perhaps brought them into conflict with the judicial branch, as immunity would only be for the period while in the office so after serving office, wrong doing would be fully prosecuted.
• The opposition focus to
Immunity from prosecution is provided to elected leaders, head of states and other officials either for life or during their time in office, in many legal and constitutional systems. This may only be connected to matters directly related to office, or it may be for any prosecution. This immunity drive its origin from English common law based on doctrine that “rex non potest peccare” means the king (or queen) can do no wrong and the King could not be sued in his own courts.
Historically Pope Gelasius (I) established sovereign immunity as a political principle, as a mean to protect the sovereign pontiff and Holy See from trials and persecutions.
The same concept was adopted in many countries as French presidential office carries with it, the immunity from all prosecution while the president remains in office. In the U.K. parliamentary immunity operates so that Members of Parliament cannot be sued for libel for what they say in Parliament. The USA also follows the suit and adopted the same concept in the constitution. The Constitution of Pakistan Article 248 also provides presidential immunity during his term of office.
Due to democratic and human rights activist these immunities are challenged and now theoretically, there are compelling arguments for both proponents and opponents of the presidential, sovereign and head of state’s immunity.
On one hand proponents argue that
• Immunity allows the president, head of state etc to remain focused on serving his office effectively.
• It is cardinal principle of justice that accused would receive a fair and impartial trial and it is very difficult when the accused holds public office. As being head of state he has an active involvement in the executive or legislative branches, will perhaps brought them into conflict with the judicial branch, as immunity would only be for the period while in the office so after serving office, wrong doing would be fully prosecuted.
• The opposition focus to