Regulation ‘Free SHS’: Srem-Sai talks on the power of law enforcement to arrest

Regulation Lecturer and Legal specialist Dr . Justice Srem-Sai, the law Lecturer has said legislation doesn’t require the police in order to notify the Speaker associated with Parliament before arresting People of Parliament (MPs). The particular UPSA Law Dean furthermore said MPs can only avoid arrest on their way to or even out of parliament. He has therefore rebuffed suggestions that the Law enforcement need exclusive permission through the Speaker of Parliament just before any member of the house could be arrested. He was talking on Citi TV’s Viewpoint following the attempt by the law enforcement to apprehend the MP meant for Madina, Francis-Xavier Sosu, more than alleged wrongdoing. “The capability of police to detain people essentially has no restrict at all. The constitution continues to be clear; that limitation is just extended to the President. Beneath the president, all of us are usually subject to arrest by the law enforcement. The MPs enjoy a exclusive period of immunity and that amount of immunity extends to they becoming on their way to parliament or even on their way out of parliament, so their parliamentary function is not obstructed. ” he or she said. But providing a tip, Dr . Srem Sai stated “The question is not if the police CAN arrest a good MP. The question is HOW the law enforcement should arrest an MEGA-PIXEL. But I can understand why problem always tends to take the initial form: we live in the country where it has turn out to be generally accepted that a officer can use any means accessible to her to arrest an individual and seize and entry her belongings. ”He contended that the “immunity” granted simply by Speaker, Members and Sales person of Parliament is with relation to the procedure of criminal arrest. Read the rest of Dr . Srem-Sai’s legal opinion: “Our laws and regulations prescribe procedures for detain and seizures. These techniques vary for different categories of individuals. We often call these variants (from the general arrest procedure) “immunity”, much so since the varied procedures further restrict the police powers of detain in respect of certain persons. Today: the immunity granted towards the Speaker, Members and the Attendant of the Parliament of Ghana is a procedural one. It really is meant to merely vary the process for arresting them (from the general police arrest procedure). The procedure is that the arrest justify for a Speaker, an MEGA-PIXEL or the Clerk of Parliament, unless in exceptional circumstances where their personal freedom poses imminent danger, needs to be served through Parliament. This baffles me why the authorities can’t seem to comply with this particular simple procedure. But , once more, I understand why: the police do not consider themselves bound legally – they’re accustomed to arresting anyone anyhow. Now, let us understand why the Constitution prescribes a different arrest procedure for the particular Speaker, the Members as well as the Clerk of Parliament. Probably, this would put the matter directly into its proper perspective. The particular Ghana Police Service is not really an independent constitutional body. It really is, by constitutional arrangement, beneath the executive branch of federal government – it is under the Chief executive. This means that the President, unless of course limited by the Constitution, will be capable of using the police in order to frustrate Parliament whose principal job is to serve as the and a counterbalance to the strength of the President. So , in order to overcome this possible station of the President’s abuse associated with power and control over the particular proceedings of Parliament, the particular framers chose to limit the particular police’s power of police arrest by channeling it by means of Parliament itself. Therefore , a spat that says that the law enforcement may arrest MPs very much the same as they arrest everyone else is not just an argument which renders the particular constitutional procedural limitations ineffective, It also, essentially and eventually, an argument which slashes away from Parliament’s independence and, therefore, further enhances the (already powerful) President’s powers. To put it differently, it is internally inconsistent in order to complain that the President is actually powerful and, at the same time, persist that he can use the police in order to arrest Members of Parliament anytime or anyhow. ”Source: MyNewsGh. com/2021
Send your own news stories to [email protected] and through WhatsApp on +233 202452509