Impeachment of a President or DP.

It seems like the Constitution created rather vague grounds for the impeachment of a President or DP. The grounds "where there are serious reasons to believe that the Deputy President has committed a crime under national or international law; or (iii) for gross misconduct" ought to have been more specific. Maybe a more detailed Act should have been prescribed as is the case with the impeachment of a governor. 

These provisions appear to create a low bar for impeachment yet it is an exercise with serious implications. It looks like as the mover of the motion said, you only need reasons to believe that crimes have been committed. You don't need to prove that any crimes were committed. Can belief be a sufficient standard of proof that an impeachable offence has been committed? This is more so given the fact that impeachment is supposed to provide a remedy for the immunity against prosecution provided to the president. 

The term gross misconduct is also quite vague and broad. The Constitution does not define what this means. The dictionary defines it as "unacceptable or improper behaviour of a very serious kind". These definitions are open to endless interpretations. How do you measure seriousness for example? 

There is also contention as to whether the impeachment of a DP or President can be challenged in court. Immediately the Senate votes to impeach, the Constitution says that the DP will cease to hold office. How then can one challenge the impeachment in court while they have already ceased to hold office constitutionally? Probably the impeachment could be overturned but there doesn't appear to be any legal possibility of being reinstated. 

Probably the drafters of the constitution assumed they were dealing with sane people. But the way the impeachment is being rushed shows otherwise. The constitution provides that the speaker of the Senate should convene the Senate within 7 days of receiving the impeachment notice from the National Assembly. How did the Senate convene on Wednesday morning to discuss an impeachment motion concluded on Tuesday night? Given these circumstances, it is possible that the parliament can even rush the process of reappointing a DP to be within a day or week as it would still be within constitutional timelines.

The claim that public participation is not needed in impeachment is also baseless. The constitution provides that parliament shall "(b) facilitate public participation and involvement in the legislative and other business of Parliament and its committees". All the business conducted by parliament whether legislative or otherwise is subject to public participation. Impeachment isn't excluded. 

These issues require a lot of constitutional interpretation by the courts. The courts need to provide clear directions to prevent political instability in future. A constitutional crisis could arise if this matter is not treated with utmost professionalism and impartiality by the courts.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

GENERAL EGG KNOWLEDGE

PRODUCER CEDO SPEAKS ON FALLOUT WITH NYASHINSKI

What are Fibroids