CORRUPTION: French Find an Italian Connection

By Julio Godoy Reprint | | Print |

Julio Godoy

PARIS, Jul 7 2003 (IPS) - It was an unfortunate coincidence for French President Jacques Chirac that his government announced a constitutional amendment to reinforce his immunity as head of state at the very time that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was being given similar protection.

"Such coincidences kill," said the French satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné.

Former prosecutor Eric Halphen who led investigations against Chirac in the 1990s said last week he "couldn’t but help find similarities between the reinforcement of the immunity for Chirac and the law Berlusconi passed for his own benefit."

Chirac is under judicial investigation in several cases of embezzlement of more than 100 million dollars of public funds. But the inquiries have been suspended because a vague constitutional immunity protects him from prosecution as long as he remains in office.

Chirac’s government is preparing an amendment to reinforce this immunity, and to clarify the circumstances under which a head of state can be brought to trial.

The amendment will be approved by the cabinet July 14 and presented to parliament later this year, Minister for Justice Dominique Perben has announced.

Given the huge majority of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), the amendment is certain to be passed.

The amendment provides that no prosecutor can investigate the head of state. Thus far investigations could be carried out, but the head of state could not be prosecuted.

The amendment provides that in exceptional cases, a majority in both chambers of parliament could ask an incumbent president to step down to face justice.

The present constitution says that the head of state could be tried only for "high treason" by "the high court of the republic", a special jury to be drawn from parliament, representatives from public administration and local leaders.

The constitution does not define what "high treason" means, or what the judiciary should do in ordinary criminal cases.

The proposed amendment does not make everything clear either. It does not clarify what exceptional circumstances could lead to impeachment. It says only that the head of state could be tried by both chambers of parliament "in case of evident breach of her or his duties, incompatible with the president’s functions."

Law experts and opposition leaders have criticised the amendment. They say it will not help clear the vagueness around the immunity issue.

Former minister for justice Robert Badinter has called the amendment "a bad constitutional coup." The government had failed to make a provision to keep present charges against Chirac pending but suspended, he told the daily Le Parisien.

In the absence of such a provision, all present corruption charges against Chirac would lapse before the end of his present mandate in 2007.

Several prosecutors have been investigating corruption cases in the Paris municipality and the Ile de France region around the capital through the 1990s. Halphen says Chirac misused the city’s funds to finance his former political party, the Rassemblement pour la Republique (RPR) during his term as mayor of Paris between 1977 and 1995.

The prosecution has obtained letters signed by Chirac in which he ordered appointment of RPR supporters in the city administration. Chirac’s supporters were paid by the Paris administration, but they never really worked for the city, prosecutors say.

In 2000, Halphen summoned Chirac for questioning. Chirac refused to comply, citing presidential immunity. Chirac said he could not be head of justice and also be questioned by a judge.

A constitutional court concluded in 2001 that the President could not be questioned by a prosecutor. But the court ruled also that the charges against Chirac would not lapse during his term as President.

That ruling left room for investigation to resume if Chirac stepped down, or was voted out.

Two other French prosecutors, Armand Riberolles and Marc Brisset-Foucault, claim to have evidence that Chirac’s party RPR benefited from an illegal system of political kickbacks through public contracts in Ile de France.

Between 1990 and 1995, local regional governments acted in collusion with a handful of private enterprises to increase the bills for public works in order to finance three political parties, the prosecutors say. The RPR received the largest chunk of the illegal commissions, they say.

Chirac also faces accusations that he diverted three million dollars from secret state funds for his personal use during his term as prime minister in 1986-1988. He used some of the money to pay for expensive private travel to Tokyo and New York, prosecutors say.

Several prosecutors also want to question Chirac over the 2.4 million dollar fruit and grocery bills of his office when he was mayor. In addition to the specific budget for such expenses, those bills averaged 1,800 dollars a day.

In one instance, an independent accounting body found a forgery. One bill worth 5,000 French francs – some 1,000 dollars at the time – was falsified to 15,000 French francs.

Prosecutor Philippe Courroye announced in June that he would renew investigations in the cases against Chirac. But now comes the constitutional amendment.