Our View: Parliamentary immunity is a shield abused
Deputies decided to deal with the issue of their so-called parliamentary immunity, after the allegations of violent behaviour made against Disy deputy Nikos Sykas by his partner. It was not the first time parliamentary immunity has been discussed inconclusively, deputies content to show some theoretical interest, with no intention of action. Their primary concern is to be seen showing an interest in order the appease people protesting about the way deputies tend to use parliamentary immunity to avoid being accountable for actions that could be unlawful.
Parliamentary immunity exists to protect deputies in the performance of their duties, so they are not intimidated by the threat of legal action when exposing wrongdoing, when making a speech about some irregular dealings. The constitution gives them protection from prosecution for opinions expressed or voting in the legislature, but bizarrely, it also stipulates that a serving deputy cannot be prosecuted for any wrongdoing without the permission of the supreme court. It is difficult to understand the reasoning for this provision, which serves no purpose other than to create the impression that deputies are above the law, unless the supreme court decides otherwise.
In the case of Sykas, the attorney-general had to seek the permission of the supreme court for the police to be able to question him in connection with the allegations of physically attacking his partner; permission was granted. The same happened a few years ago in the case of Andreas Themistocleous, who had been issued several speeding fines that he consistently refused to pay, citing his parliamentary immunity. Permission for his prosecution was eventually granted by the supreme court, but it was a ridiculous waste of the court’s time caused by the deputy’s abuse of the immunity provision. It was the same in the case of Edek deputy Fidias Sarikas who faced bribery allegations.
Deputies have from time to time said they would change the law so that immunity is not granted for ordinary offences. The first attempt was made by Giorgos Perdikis in 2012 and two bills that would address the matter were tabled although since then, they were never voted. After the latest outcry, the House legal affairs committee discussed the possibility that offences not related to the execution of a deputy’s duties were not granted immunity. Deputies from different parties supported such an arrangement, but the proposal that a study should be conducted first – “to examine what the case is in other countries” – seemed like a delaying tactic. Lawmakers have been discussing the matter on and off for 14 years and never found out what happens in other countries.
This matter must be resolved now. We do not need to study what happens in other countries. The constitution must be amended, before the end of this parliament, because deputies will carry on abusing the immunity provision.