Understanding the President’s Immunity
By Khalid A.
London , UK
Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan and others have spoken of the law of immunity for the President and Governors. Aitzaz Ahsan compared the position of the President vis-à-vis the Monarch of England. For the information of your readers, I would like to recall the example of King Henry II.
During his reign, Archbishop Thomas Becket (1118-1170 AD) was assassinated. The King realized that the masses suspected royal involvement in his murder. Henry II accepted his failure in the matter of the Archbishop’s protection and offered himself for punishment. He was given lashes in public. This was not a punishment for a dethroned King, but for a reigning monarch who continued to occupy the throne after receiving the lashes. That was nearly 11 centuries ago when the monarch was an absolute ruler.
A more recent example in this context is that of Governor Blagojevich of Illinois, who was arrested for corruption in December 2008.
The immunity given to a King or President, has to be understood in the following way: The President of Pakistan or the Queen of Britain, sign documents recommended by the respective Prime Ministers. This is a mere formal arrangement. If someone wants to challenge such documents or orders, he/she will have to sue the Federation/State, rather than the President or the Queen personally. The immunity is for matters of State carried out under the signatures of the President or the Queen. The immunity does not cover criminal offences.There was no immunity for King Henry II or the Governor of Illinois against criminal offences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
