Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

MALIKI - IMMUNITY - WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS


Recommended Posts

ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME, AND MY POSTS, KNOWS THAT I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS TO SEE MALIKI GO - SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN I MAKE THIS POST - I MEAN NO DISRESPECT OR LACK OF AFFECTION FOR ANYONE WHO IS STATING THAT MALIKI IS TOAST BECAUSE NEITHER HE NOR HIS DEPUTIES WERE SWORN IN - I EXAMINE THE LAW TO SEE IF WE HAVE support FOR OUR WISH - 

 

BASED ON MY FINDINGS BELOW - UNLESS FORMAL FELONIOUS CHARGES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST MALIKI - BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION - WE MAY NOT HAVE support FOR THE IDEA THAT HE WILL DEFINITIVELY BE GONE - 

 

- HOWEVER, AS HIS POST WAS NOT LISTED AMONG THE LIST OF CANDIDATES TO BE VOTED ON IN THE LAST ELECTIONS, COMBINED WITH A LACK OF NOMINATIONS HE MAY  HAVE LOST HIS ABILITY TO BE INVOLVED WITH PARLIAMENT - AND LOST HIS IMMUNITY - THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT UNLESS HE HAS CHARGES FORMALLY BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, HE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED - SO WE WAIT TO SEE THE RESULT OF HIM NOT BEING SWORN IN

 

ON THE SUBJECT OF IMMUNITY -

 

FROM THE IRAQI CONSTITUTION:

 

Article (63):

 

First, define the rights and privileges of the President of the House of Representatives and his deputies and members of the council, by law. Second: A member of the House of Representatives enjoy immunity for statements made in the course of the views of a session, and do not be prosecuted before the courts for this.

B may not be captured on the member during the term of the legislative term unless he is accused of a felony, and with the approval of the absolute majority of the members to lift his immunity or if caught red-handed in a felony.

 

C may not be captured on the member outside the duration of the legislative term unless he is accused of a felony, and with the approval of the President of the House of Representatives to lift his immunity or if caught red-handed in a felony.

 

Section III: General Provisions Article (100): Prohibits the provision of the law on the immunity of any administrative action or decision of the appeal.
 

http://www.iraq-lg-law.org/en/node/323

 

Reference article on immunity - or lack of

 

Disqualified candidates spark controversy in Iraq

 

The newly issued judicial decisions disqualifying election candidates in Iraq have reopened the debate on the standards of justice and equal opportunity for candidates.

 

Newly issued judicial decisions, which prevent certain persons from running in the upcoming elections due to outstanding lawsuits against them, have caused a heated debate in Iraq.

 

This time the controversy was accompanied by a debate on the loose mechanisms preventing those covered by the de-Baathification measures from running in the elections, after the judicial committee, which is associated with the Independent High Electoral Commission, issued a resolute and unappealable decision against a group of current members of parliament and ministers. This group includes Rafi al-Issawi from the Mutahidoun bloc, Abdul Dhiab al-Ojailim member of the Iraqiya List, Jawad al-Shahyla and Sabah al-Saadi from the al-Ahrar movement and Mithal al-Alusi of the Civil Movement.

 

The legal framework for this disqualification comes under Article 8 of the Iraqi Electoral Law, which sets forth conditions that electoral candidates must meet. This includes the condition that candidates “shall be of good conduct and shall not be convicted for a dishonorable crime.” Meanwhile, the lawsuits that have been filed against the disqualified MPs have mostly been related to statements they made, or corruption charges that have not been ruled on given the legislative immunity granted to MPs.

 

In form, the disqualification goes in line with the text of the aforementioned article and ensures that defendants are brought to court once immunity is removed, and that their victory in the elections will prevent them from facing the charges brought against them for four more years.

 

As a matter of content, the immunity prevents MPs from being legally considered as “defendants,” and therefore are innocent until proven guilty. The guilt shall only be proven in a resolute and applicable court ruling, which was stated in the same article, provided that a ruling is issued against the disqualified candidate.

 

This matter adds to the unresolved loopholes that are open to interpretation, which are plentiful in the Iraqi constitution and laws.

 

It is even stranger that these MPs are not the only ones facing unsettled lawsuits. The Iraqi legal turmoil has allowed over the past years a large number of politicians, and even many ordinary citizens, to be involved in cases that could remain in courts for years.

 

The standards of justice seem to overlap at this point. For instance, the Electoral Law did not elaborate whether the charges brought against the politician — convicted or not — are considered sufficient to prohibit him from running in the elections. Thus, this prevents many candidates from being disqualified, although their legal conditions seem to be similar to those candidates who have been disqualified. Therefore, the disqualification issue is linked to settling electoral scores to the advantage of political parties.

 

All this controversy is the product of an Iraqi law that did not specify criteria to govern legislative immunity. Is it absolute or restricted to specific cases? Are there any mechanisms that allow the resolution of unresolved cases within the framework of this “immunity”?

 

Perhaps the blame can be placed upon the MPs themselves for not following up on these cases with the legal system and for not invoking their immunity when responding to charges. Yet, this explanation is not sufficient, particularly if the MP was actually referred to the judiciary and his case was not settled prior to the elections.

The interpretation of the law must be linked to the supreme value of the popular representation of the MP. The disqualification of any MP having an ambiguous legal status means that the voters’ will has been taken away. This requires additional caution in dealing with such details, particularly since the legislative immunity issue is not randomly brought up in every political experience, and the MP's immunity is not regarded as personal immunity, but rather immunity for the voters’ will.

 

The recent legal disqualification issue is in fact a booby trap that has been detonated ahead of the elections, and it will lead to a controversy that will last until after the elections — a controversy not less than the one provoked by the de-Baathification measures for more than 10 years now.
 

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ru/originals/2014/03/iraq-elections-disqualified-candidates-controversy.html##ixzz37Z9jGZj8


GREAT RELATED THREAD

 

http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/182390-maliki-leaves-the-parliament-session-at-the-request-of-one-of-the-house-of-representatives/

Edited by TBomb
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOTW sent me something along those lines, TBomb, and that makes sense. My response to that would be, he may not have charges against him now, but he has to resign from the PM spot to be able to run for PM again, and when and if he does that, he will be exposed. The opposition can delay parliament, by just not showing up, for as long as it takes to draw up charges.


In the meantime, if he squats while he is ineligible, they will be forced to just vote for another PM. Maliki, after all, will not have gone through the proper procedures to get himself eligible.

Edited by ReVbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares? Real investors bought dinars to make money. That's it. We don't care about the rest of it. He said that she said that I said that you said that we said that they said blah blah blah. Who cares? Just pay me and put me out of my misery. Thanks for listening. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I joke around that they should hang Maliki, but I don't know. What would be the best thing for Iraq? To start their democracy by hanging the first guy who gets elected, then screws up? Where would be the incentive to continue this experiment with democracy. It's all new to them. I think the time is to be generous with your enemies. The Sunnis and Kurds should make it clear Maliki should resign, but would be immune from prosecution. In a very war-torn country with sides hating each other, trying for peace and prosperity, giving Maliki is the best thing, to move the country forward.


My guess is, if they want to hang Maliki, in a country like Iraq, with all that oil money around, corrupting, and decades of ethnic strife, then to be fair, they likely have to put about 25% of the country.

 

I wouldn't go there.

 

To be fair, when the blacks took over South Africa, considering all the horsesh*t the whites pulled on the blacks over the decades, thousands of whites should have got the noose.

 

Nelson Mandela did the great thing.

 

He was generous with the men who imprisoned him for decades, in order to achieve reconciliation, among the groups.

 

That was one reason he was a great man.

 

The same approach is needed here.

 

There is a time for blood and vengeance.

 

That time, is not now.


....so my message to Maliki would be: "Your choice. Resign with dignity. Live out your life in wealth and comfort, immune from all  criminal charges. Or face a rope"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

POLITICS ARE AT THE ROOT OF THIS - WE NEED A GOVT THAT WILL PASS THE LAWS, IN A BASKET, ONE AT A TIME..WHATEVER....WE KNOW THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON THESE PEOPLE WILL NOT PASS LAWS (PAST HOUSE MEMBERS/MP'S) - SO NOW WE WAIT FOR THE NEW PARLIAMENT TO PASS LAWS WE NEED TO SEE ECONOMIC REFORM.  IF ONE WANTS TO TAKE A POSITION OF "BLAH BLAH BLAH....THE GOVT BLAH BLAH BLAH...WE GOT IN THIS TO MAKE MONEY" AND DOESN'T THINK THE REALIZATION OF SEEING OUR INVESTMENT IS CONNECTED TO THE PARLIAMENT/GOI IS WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBOMB I THINK ROBO IS JUST AS FRUSTRATED AS ALL  OF US ARE WITH THESE KNUCKLEHEADS NOT MOVING FORWARD. I THOUGHT OUR GOVERNMENT WAS WORTHLESS. JUST GOES TO SHOW YOU THINGS CAN ALWAYS BE WORSE. I THINK ROBO JUST WANTS IT OVER LIKE ALL OF US. TBOMB I APPRECIATE YOUR POST AND GET INSIGHT ON THINGS FROM THEM. HANG IN ROBO. WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT. I THINK A COUPLE OF THE IRAQ PARLIMENT ARE ON O'S CABINET... LOL!

 

GO RV! SOON WOULD BE NICE.

 

:moon-from-car:  LET'S GET ROLLING...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.