notion of discrimination arising out of the fact that another person who might have engaged in similar conduct was not likewise charged with the same offence. Clearly, this would not be a defence to the charge, since every person must face the consequences of his or her own actions. A constitution, by its nature, is not likely to offer immunity to people who violate the law. Secondly and more to the point, however, is the fact that the applicant, by his own admission, accepts that the presidential candidate concerned was, at the ‘íncumbent’ time he allegedly made the utterances, the President of the country. As correctly submitted for the respondent, the President was, as such, immune from prosecution. Section 30(1) of the old Constitution read as follows: Presidential immunity “30 The President not, while in office, be personally liable to any civil or criminal proceedings whatsoever in any court” It is evident in the light of this provision that the applicant cannot validly claim to have been treated in a discriminatory manner, when the person’ whom he ‘other claims should have been penalised the same way was, by operation of law, immune from such treatment. When all is told I find that the applicant’s claim lacks merit in all respects, and ought to be dismissed. It is accordingly ordered as follows;
notion of discrimination arising out of the fact that another person who might have engaged in similar conduct was not likewise charged with the same offence. Clearly, this would not be a defence to the charge, since every person must face the consequences of his or her own actions. A constitution, by its nature, is not likely to offer immunity to people who violate the law. Secondly and more to the point, however, is the fact that the applicant, by his own admission, accepts that the ‘íncumbent’ presidential candidate concerned was, at the time he allegedly made the utterances, the President of the country. As correctly submitted for the respondent, the President was, as such, immune from prosecution. Section 30(1) of the old Constitution read as follows: “30 Presidential immunity The President not, while in office, be personally liable to any civil or criminal proceedings whatsoever in any court” It is evident in the light of this provision that the applicant cannot validly claim to have been treated in a discriminatory manner, when the ‘other person’ whom he claims should have been penalised the same way was, by operation of law, immune from such treatment. When all is told I find that the applicant’s claim lacks merit in all respects, and ought to be dismissed. It is accordingly ordered as follows;