Czech president impeached for state pardon to criminals
charged with financial frauds.
A few days ago, on Monday March 4, the Senate of the Czech Republic
impeached the country’s President for granting state pardon to criminals
charged with financial frauds.
By a vote of 38 to 30 the Czech Republic Senate indicted and
impeached President Václav Klaus, at an executive session, for issuing
state pardon on December 31, 2012, to cover a range of financial crimes;
including investment funds thefts, and, non-violent crimes or offences
committed by elderly persons. President Václav Klaus gave amnesty
alongside to all criminals facing 10-year jail terms but whose court
trials have exceeded 8 years by December 31, 2012.
Altogether, he released 6,236 prisoners under his hands, being 25% of
prison inmates, although quite a few of those he amnestied quickly
re-committed crimes within days and were promptly returned to jail,
giving a lie to a plausible argument of offenders’ penitence or
contrition that his clever by half spokesmen could invent.
Showing its outrage further, the Czech Republic Senate quickly passed
a separate resolution immediately referring President Václav Klaus to
the Constitutional Court on indictment for treason trial. In a country
riven by corruption, a state pardon of financial crimes by President
Václav Klaus was considered serious enough to rise to the level of high
crime against the Czech Republic, in the Senate’s majority view.
Two separate charges of constitutional trespasses were then added in
the treason indictment for a consolidated trial by the Constitutional
Court before or by June this year.
No nonsense, no sentiments, the Czech Republic Senate in taking these
un-precedented steps against corruption, simply dis-regarded President
Václav Klaus’ age, for despite being 71-year-old, the Czech Republic
President is to face judicial punishment, if convicted for treason, and,
shall become legally disable as an ex-convict to forfeit his pension
for 10 years in office as the president.
"The broad amnesty for thousands of people only serves as a
smoke-screen for pardons of serious economic offenses and abolition of
their investigations", said Jan Macháček, a columnist for the Respekt
weekly, whilst commenting on what’s emerging in other countries too as a
trick whereby a President adds several names to conceal the prominence
of a person really intended to be favoured.
“Oh, no!” retorted President Václav Klaus. "I did not have a single
specific person in front of my eyes when [preparing] the amnesty,"
President Václav Klaus said.
Not to worry, the Constitutional Court will hear President Václav Klaus more fully, but from the dock.
For now, he can ponder the prospect of severe cross-examination founded on Article 2 of the Czech Republic which says:-
(1) The people are the source of all power in the State; they exercise
it through bodies of legislative, executive and judiciary powers.
(1) The people are the source of all power in the State; they
exercise it through bodies of legislative, executive and judiciary
powers.
(2) A Constitutional Act may define when the people exercise state power directly.
(3) State power shall serve all citizens and may be applied only in cases, within limits and by methods defined by law.
(4) Every citizen may do what is not prohibited by law and nobody
may be forced to do what the law does not instruct them to do.
(2) A Constitutional Act may define when the people exercise state power directly.
(3) State power shall serve all citizens and may be applied only in cases, within limits and by methods defined by law.
(4) Every citizen may do what is not prohibited by law and nobody
may be forced to do what the law does not instruct them to do.
On those constitutional provisions, President Václav Klaus will seem
to be in all sorts of legal knots, because as phrased, the powers of
state in the Czech Republic are not reposed on him as individual, to
enable him invoke the defence of executive discretion – which the
Presidents of many other countries will more readily assert, along with
immunity; neither of which bogus defence the constitution of Czech
Republic accepts in defence of treason.
Besides excluding those two bogus defences, the constitution of Czech
Republic does something else sensible. Its article two provision is
captioned “Fundamental Provisions” – meaning it overrides any other
conflicting law or power. And although similar provisions exist as
Chapter 2 in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, and also labelled
“Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy”, the
Nigerian version is worse than useless.
According to Nigeria’s Supreme Court, Nigeria’s own longish version
of “Fundamental Principles” is just mere advice to the government which
no court of law can enforce, because, in the quaint lingo of the Supreme
Court of Nigeria, the “Fundamental Principles” of Nigeria’s own
constitution are “non-justiciable”.
Much worse, the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria grants immunity for life
to the President of Nigeria for all acts done or omitted to be done in
his or her official capacity. Surely, with such pincer-like privilege,
the President of Nigeria has absolute legal license to do as he wishes.
“Nigeria is not even a pretence to democracy but an utter shambles”,
said a Lagos columnist. “Its 1999 Constitution makes clear in advance to
the routinely duped voters that they are only being invited to vote and
choose a dictator over themselves”.
Set beside the Czech Republic, Nigeria begins to look strange and
funny, in terms of law and order, because immunity having tied their
hands and divested middle-class Nigerians of lawful powers to force the
issue against a recalcitrant, obstinate, murderous, corrupt or adamant
President, the non-justiciability of any legal complaint sounding in
ethical outrage against an elected Nigeria President, makes sure that
the President of Nigeria at any point is not answerable to anyone for
ethical mis-use of state powers.
And, just as correlation is not causation, fundamental principles
commonly appearing in the constitution of both Czech Republic and
Nigeria, lack similar result.
Illustratively, Article 2 (3) of the Czech Republic constitution says:
State power shall serve all citizens and may be applied only in cases, within limits and by methods defined by law.
There is no such express provision in Nigeria’s own 1999
Constitution; as such, no concrete ethical control of a Nigerian
President’s use of state powers. Article 2 (3) of the Czech Republic
makes the difference and explains why a Nigerian President can afford to
ride roughshod over public opinion.
Indeed, more often than not, a Nigerian President just casually
appropriates all national powers, as individual, and uses it solely at
his own discretion, for private purposes; either to gift taxpayers’
money to lady-friends as he wishes, or, at other times to direct that
the treasury makes illicit cash deliveries to cronies under false
entries.
As this financial treason rages under its shambolic constitution, one
of Nigeria’s supposed “50 wise men” who drafted it and put the country
into voluntary bondage, Professor Ben Nwabueze (Chairman of the
sub-committee which drafted the non-justiciable chapter two of the 1999
Constitution) has lately been confessing the drafters’ errors and mostly
naïve assumptions.
“We were misled”, he said, ruing the atrocious consequences since
then, as a Nigerian President commanded soldiers to kill almost everyone
in both Odi village and in Zaki-Biam, which the Nigerian courts of law
could only view as photographic evidence, without any power to punish
the malfeasant President, both murders being legally immunized under the
zany 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
To save face after much hand-wringing, the fettered Nigerian courts
of law awarded 70 billion Naira as damages payable by all Nigerians, but
which those cold-bloodedly murdered in Odi and Zaki-Biam can’t receive
or spend.