Dear Editor,
Two recent articles in Stabroek News refer to presidential immunity: ‘AG to seek civil action over Pradoville 2 – says Jagdeo immunity open to question’ (SN 16 October) and ‘Ex ministers should be held liable over Pradoville 2 land – State Assets Recovery report’ (SN 15 October 2015). Both articles imply that the National Constitution (cap. 001:01 of 1980/2003) gives a blanket immunity to presidents and former presidents from court action. Article 182 (1) grants immunity in respect of ‘the performance of the functions of his office or for any other act done in that performance of those functions and no proceedings, whether criminal or civil, shall be instituted in respect thereof either during his term of office or thereafter’. I suppose that presidents who acquire property for themselves are not doing so as part of their presidential functions but as ordinary citizens. Article 182 (2) provides immunity from court action only ‘whilst [any] person holds or performs the functions of the office [of] President . . . in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his private capacity’.
Thus in the case of any alleged illegalities over land transactions in Pradoville 2, the sitting President could not be arraigned even over his private actions. But as soon as the President leaves office, his private actions carried out while president become open to challenge in court.
Given this clarity in the National Constitution, it is not clear why the State Assets Recovery Unit, the current Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions are not investigating the private actions of former President Bharrat Jagdeo concerning land in the Pradoville 2 estate, and indeed all the other cases for which there are newspaper allegations of wrongdoing by this former President? Through your columns, Editor, I request a public clarification by the AG and DPP.
Yours faithfully,
Janette Bulkan
