Gilbert Bukenya and Donald Rumsfeld face a similar court ruling, though on different sides of the ocean. All are in court battles, pleading to the journeys on the pedal of immunity against the charges they face.
From the Desktop.
Kampala: FORMER Vice President, Prof. Gilbert Bukenya has no presidential immunity and therefore must stand trial over the CHOGM vehicles procurement process, the Constitutional Court ruled this morning.
“We emphasise that immunity is a right or privilege given by law. It cannot therefore be inferred from language used. There must be clear and unequivocal expression conferring that right of privilege… Had the promulgators of the 1995 Constitution so wished, they could have, with ease, used similar language. Thus no one else, not even the President who delegates or assigns duties can grant that immunity to anyone else…,” the five Justices unanimously ruled.
In July, the Constitutional court halted the criminal proceedings against Bukenya at the Anti-Corruption Court, pending the hearing and determination of his Constitutional petition challenging the proceedings.
Washington: A federal district court judge in Washington, D.C., determined that a lawsuit filed against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could go on. This was despite claims from Rumsfeld and the Obama administration that he should be immune from suit. After assessing the claims of "John Doe," Judge James S. Gwin found that American citizens don’t lose their constitutional rights simply because it's wartime.
"The court finds no convincing reason," wrote Gwin, "that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously-declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad."
On Monday, a three-judge panel from the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals came to pretty much the same conclusion. Reviewing a different lawsuit, filed by two different military contractors, alleging similar forms of abuse at the same camp, the panel determined, with one judge filing a partial dissent, that their suit against Rumsfeld could proceed..
As Adam Serwer explained a week before: "When deciding whether or not these cases are allowed to go forward, judges have to assume that the plaintiff's version of events is 'reasonable.' So part of what Rumsfeld and his team have to argue is that even if the allegations were true, the law doesn't allow Doe to sue the government for torturing him and detaining him without trial."
