Mapuya thinks Section 91 campaign is personalised

(Mapuya has appeared in the chamber of judge Mbadwa, irked by calls to amend Section 91 (2 ))

Judge Mbadwa: Though by law he is supposed to enjoy some immunity, His Excellency Mapuya has for the sake of this matter decided to represent himself. He feels people are spewing out a lot of nonsense and he cannot remain silent. This court is, therefore, going to treat Mapuya as an court user. Present skeletal arguments of your case, sir.

Mapuya: My Lord, I have followed the debate that Section 91 (2) of the Constitution should be amended to remove the provision that gives a sitting president immunity from prosecution and that is where I have a problem.

My Lord, the constitution says “no person holding the office of President shall be charged with any criminal offence in any court during his [or her] term of office, except where he or she has been charged with an offence on impeachment.”

Now those agitating for the amendment should give proper justification why should this amendment happen during my tenure when during the reign of Amayi, Mose and even Tchalamani nothing of that sort happened.

Are they implying that I am a criminal who needs to be prosecuted?

My Lord, I think I am being defamed because in their proposal, there is a subtle innuendo that I have skeletons in my cupboard and I should face the law.

I want to put it on record here that I Mapuya is a squeaky-clean politician.

I challenge those who think otherwise to produce evidence that I have been involved in shoddy corrupt deals or I am a mastermind of abuse of government funds to come in the open and present evidence as I have always challenged.

My accounts are open for scrutiny and you will discover that I have not received any suspected proceeds of crime. Don’t forget that as required by law I periodically declare my assets and those in doubt can check for themselves that my wealth is lawfully obtained.

My Lord, my government respects the rule of law and no one is above the law but then the constitution should not just be changed to satisfy the whims of my political opponents. I know they want to see me and members of my People’s Demagogic Party (PDP) incarcerated. It is not going to happen.

Why am I questioning the motive of those who want Section 91 amended?  The issue of immunity was first raised by the baby I booted out in my party because he had grown too big for his boots and I suspect he has a bone to grind with me.

Sorry My Lord, I did not fire him from my party, but he left of his own accord.

I have made my submission that this campaign must fall. Thanks My Lord.

Judge Mbadwa: This is a straightforward matter. If you really have nothing to hide as you have said time and gain, why can’t you allow the amendment of the Act to go ahead so that you should shut up your detractors once and for all?

It is the view of this court that the immunity issue is not being personalised as we have been made to understand in your submission.

Holding leaders to account is something that should be promoted in the spirit of the constitution.  I, therefore, dismiss your application to have the immunity clause maintained. n

 

Share This Post