MPs Should Have Immunity from Arrest

[Omollo]

• Tweet

For the proper functioning of government and to avoid executive abuse of power, MPs should have constitutional immunity from arrest. The police must make an application to the speaker who would pass it on to a committee which would based on the evidence presented allow or disallow arrest.

An MP may be prosecuted in absentia. Either way he would be free to attend his trial and defend himself while free and attending to his duties.

It is very simple to understand why certain countries took that step: A President can lock up enough MPs and keep them away from parliament to ensure he has a majority to pass certain laws. Fortunately, constitutional amendments require a QUORUM without which any business becomes a nullity.

[RV Pundit]

As long as everyone get bail as a right; I don't see any problem with police doing their job. Unless judiciary was to set impossible bail condition nobody should fear arrest.

For the proper functioning of government and to avoid executive abuse of power, MPs should have constitutional immunity from arrest. The police must make an application to the speaker who would pass it on to a committee which would based on the evidence presented allow or disallow arrest.

An MP may be prosecuted in absentia. Either way he would be free to attend his trial and defend himself while free and attending to his duties.

It is very simple to understand why certain countries took that step: A President can lock up enough MPs and keep them away from parliament to ensure he has a majority to pass certain laws. Fortunately, constitutional amendments require a QUORUM without which any business becomes a nullity.

[Omollo]

As long as everyone get bail as a right; I don't see any problem with police doing their job. Unless judiciary was to set impossible bail condition nobody should fear arrest.

Today, MPs are scrambling to propose a law to bar arrests on Fridays. I think what they should be looking for in addition to irresponsibility is inviolability

Looks like it is nothing new:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_immunity

[Omollo]

United States[edit]
Main article: Speech or Debate Clause
Mason's Manual notes, "The courts, by a series of decisions, have explained away almost every essential feature of the privilege from arrest as it once existed...A member of the legislature has no right to physically resist an officer attempting to make an arrest to the extent of assaulting such officer."[12]

Members of the United States Congress enjoy a similar parliamentary privilege as members of the British Parliament; that is, they cannot be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the House or Senate. They also enjoy the right to be present in Congress: that is, they may be in prison or jail the rest of the time, but they have the right to attend Congressional sessions, speak on the floor, vote, etc. These rights are specified in the Constitution and have been fairly uncontroversial in U.S. history. Courts have consistently interpreted them very narrowly.

Several state constitutions provided equivalent protections for members of state legislatures.

[Nefertiti]

This would be struck out by the bench as unconstitutional. MPs pass laws and even katiba amendments and should not be immunized from any law. That way for any law they have to imagine it in the hands of their worst enemy, as the adage says.

As long as everyone get bail as a right; I don't see any problem with police doing their job. Unless judiciary was to set impossible bail condition nobody should fear arrest.

Today, MPs are scrambling to propose a law to bar arrests on Fridays. I think what they should be looking for in addition to irresponsibility is inviolability

Looks like it is nothing new:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_immunity

[Omollo]

On what basis would a constitutional provision be "unconstitutional"? Go slow on wine.

This would be struck out by the bench as unconstitutional. MPs pass laws and even katiba amendments and should not be immunized from any law. That way for any law they have to imagine it in the hands of their worst enemy, as the adage says.

[Nefertiti]

Any law including a katiba amendment can be struck down by the courts. It depends on what the law actually says. All citizens are equal so a special provision to shield MPs could easily be struck down. MPs already have privilege for utterances in the chambers. Normal crimes outside chambers are not immune.

On what basis would a constitutional provision be "unconstitutional"? Go slow on wine.

This would be struck out by the bench as unconstitutional. MPs pass laws and even katiba amendments and should not be immunized from any law. That way for any law they have to imagine it in the hands of their worst enemy, as the adage says.

[Omollo]

Any law including a katiba amendment can be struck down by the courts. It depends on what the law actually says. All citizens are equal so a special provision to shield MPs could easily be struck down. MPs already have privilege for utterances in the chambers. Normal crimes outside chambers are not immune.

Leave out laws. It is the constitution we are talking about.

It would be simple: refer to the bill of rights and add ".. that not withstanding.." end of story.