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