Earlier this week the news broke about a cabinet minister of a neighbouring country being detained by the police upon the arrival of his flight at Gatwick Airport, London, and apparently enroute Cannes in France for an international meeting.
Subsequent to his release the erstwhile minister issued a statement in which he explained that upon arrival, and after effecting the usual clearance procedures, he was approached by the police who told him that they wished to question him.
In the statement he said that he was then placed under arrest for questioning, during which he fully cooperated with the police, and that he was later released without any requirement for bail, without any restrictions, and was allowed to travel freely into London where he transacted some business.
The prime minister of his country wasted no time in having the minister’s cabinet appointments revoked by that country’s Governor General, explaining that he wanted nothing but the very highest standards of conduct from his cabinet colleagues at all times, and also indicating that he would now await the outcome of the investigations underway.
The individual who was arrested and questioned is but one of a number of his country’s cabinet level (and other) officials who have been the subject of several investigations by international entities over a number of years.
As may well be expected there has been quite a lot of public speculation and tongue waggingconcerning the matter. For our part we of this newspaper are prepared to await its final outcome.
What has now impacted the minds of many in the region is the clear and unmistakablefact that mere possession of a diplomatic passport does not necessarily guarantee immunity and protection from arrest and detention.
Strictly speaking, diplomatic immunity applies to diplomats accredited to specific nation states,certain members of their assigned staff, and, very specifically, the discharge of their respective functions within the countries to which they have been accredited or assigned.
There are those who have for many years operated under the mistaken belief that they can indulge in all manner of corruptions, and then escape scrutiny and arrest because they are holders of diplomatic passports. It is one of the main reasons why, over the years, governments in the region and beyond have been persuaded, principally by politicians and senior civil servants, to perpetually widen the slate of persons who may be granted diplomatic passports, apart from the fact that many were also seeking elevation of their personal status.
Monday’s development at London Gatwick should inject a strong measure of sobriety in those who have been abusing the privilege, and it is a privilege, of travelling on diplomatic passports.
Indeed, there are unconfirmed reports that, as a direct result of the news out of London, several members of our government have quite suddenly begun making an increased number of visits to their bathrooms, and that similar results have taken effect in some other countries across the region.
In many respects the development can prove to be something for good. If our ministers have been made to feel the need to travel out of the country with reduced frequency that could be something good for the country and our people, but only if they make productive use of the increased ‘time at home’ by genuinely trying to do things which will help with our development, as a country and as individual persons.
Given their dismal failures thus far, and our country’s retrogression in most every sphere of production and development, any such improvement would be like a breath of fresh air.
We are prepared to wait and see if any such changes for good take place, but, assuredly, we will not be holding our breaths.