Sunday 5 February 2017

Grant IMMUNITY for Anglophone negotiators

By Franklin Sone Bayen
I hope I know what I'm talking about. I'm no man of Law (lawyers and experts of Law may help), but I'm thinking that the reason IMMUNITY is granted for certain functions is because of the risks of offending (stepping on toes) involved in their line of duty. As a reporter I have noticed that members of parliament, diplomats, members of government and the head of state among others, benefit from privileged immunity, that is, protection from prosecution while in service. In Cameroon, a new law grants the president of the republic immunity even after he would have left office.
                PARLIAMENTARIANS: I'm thinking that the reason the law provides protection against prosecution for parliamentarians is because of the challenges involved in the execution of their duties as the second arm (second estate of the realm) of government. In holding the executive to give account through checks and balances, feathers are bound to be ruffled so, international conventions make provisions for the protection of individuals performing parliamentary duties. Should parliamentarians be liable to prosecution, the Executive may bring it's weight to bear on the Judiciary to prosecute them on the least pretext for denying the Executive its quiet enjoyment. LAWYERS: Likewise, I'm also thinking that lawyers benefit from immunity for what they say in front of a judge because it often takes hard intellectual and verbal gymnastics to explain their clients' case, and actions and words used are likely to be injurious and liable for prosecution were they not under the cover of immunity. ANGLOPHONE NEGOTIATORS/LEADERS: Which is why I'm proposing that on moral grounds, if not under legal provisions, Anglophones who were negotiating with the government and others facing trial be freed under consideration of special cover of immunity. The reasons would be the same as for parliamentarians and lawyers. Or how else would other future negotiators be reassured that they too would not have the sword of damocles dangling over their heads?

                SPIRIT OF THE LAW/GOOD FAITH: I propose this, evoking the SPIRIT OF THE LAW where there is no such provision under the LETTER OF THE LAW in our national legislation. I take this approach -- appealing to good sense -- with the reasoning that when an opponent in a fight grips you at your balls, it may be heroic to give them the hardest kick or blow to disengage their grip on your precious, delicate balls. While that may just succeed to free your balls, there is a high risk that the motion of the blow may cause the grip to tear your balls open. Oh my! What an analogy! But one does not have the clearest thoughts these days seeing all we have to grapple with, so I beg someone not so much at ease with this to tolerate me (grant me IMMUNITY) on the grounds of our prevailing situation.
                So, instead of follow the option of the blow, I prefer to appeal to the good sense of the angry fighter holding savagely to our balls. Even in the midst of a wild fight, a shrill, little voice may touch hearts and appeal to good reason.
                I resort to this approach because I guess Yaounde understands there will be rebounds in this matter before we can all enjoy total calm. So, it only makes sense to make our beds how we wish to lie on them in the hereafter.
                I resort to this approach because we want our brothers back unscathed.



No comments:

Post a Comment