Presidential Immunity

[yazdi]

Re: Presidential Immunity

@Shamraz_Khan

Actually, the concept of immunity comes from English Common Law where kings/queens or person/persons acting on their behalf had immunity. Pakistan, like most of the world, operates under a written constitution, and not under Islamic Laws; therefore, this concept applies to to head of the state/govt.

Also, there is reason for giving immunity to heads of govt/state b/c often times they have to make life or death decisions that average person does not have to deal with & they must have immunity to act w/o fear of prosecution. Additionally, head of state/govt represent co-equal branch of govt which makes executive decisions, and just like judges and members of parliament (in many countries) are immune from prosecution (they make laws why wouldn’t they protect themselves?), presidents/pms have blanket immunity from prosecution. Only exception to this rule is treason, a specific type of crime listed/defined by the constitution, and its punishment is usually prescribed, too, in the constitution.

1. Constitution of Pakistan clearly states that legislation can not be made against the spirit of Islam.

2. Immunity is not only against the spirit of Islam but also against the very basis of any judicial system. It was not granted in US/Italy on these grounds when the Head of the state claimed it:

**A) "Earlier, Clinton was involved in another controversy with a woman called Paula Corbin Jones. In this sexual harassment case, the sitting president had prayed before the court that he be granted immunity from this civil lawsuit, where his actions prior to his taking office as president were challenged.

Without a single dissenting note coming from any of the judges hearing this case on May 27, 1997, the US court ruled in favour of Paula Jones (a state clerical employee working at the registration desk for a conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock) by finding that the president did not enjoy immunity from civil lawsuits relating to personal conduct that was not part of his official duties."**

B) "Among other matters, the court had ruled that the afore-cited law violated Article 3 of the Italian Constitution, which stipulates that “all citizens have equal social status and are equal before the law” and Article 138 by allowing an “unreasonable disparity between the rights of defence and the needs of jurisdiction.” "