Let presidents be judged for who they are

By Odonga Otto

WHILE attending a workshop on the public finance Bill organised by African Parliamentarians Against Corruption, I had the opportunity to engage the Madi Okol MP, Andi Martin Drito on his proposed constitutional amendments to exonerate sitting presidents from prosecution of criminal offences even after they have left office.

Drito’s main argument was that it would make it more palatable for the presidents to leave office at the expiry of their term knowing they will not be prosecuted as they adopt to ordinary citizen’s life. 

His arguments presuppose that there is a point of satiety that a sitting president on his/her own will want to leave office. 

Presidents already have some form of immunity, For instance, Drito should note that legally all cases against the President are instituted in the name of the Attorney General. 

In many other jurisdictions there are very few daring people who would want to be caught thinking like Drito. 

In many countries there have been efforts to remove immunity of leaders who abuse office while in power, for instance the case of a former prime minister of Israel whose immunity was waived before court on sexual.

In the event that Drito’s amendment goes through, a sitting president may intentionally commit offences knowing he/she is above the law.

Drito should concentrate his efforts on restoring term limits. Within restored term limits, every sitting president would be cautious, knowing that after a period of time he will become an ordinary citizen and may be brought to book.

There is no guarantee that immunity from prosecution would lure presidents to voluntarily leave office.

It should be rather a good legacy like that of Mandela of South Africa who left the presidency at the height of his popularity.

The writer is the Aruu County MP