Sir, – Harry McGee repeats one of the greatest myths in Irish politics when he says that the presidency “cannot be subject to criticism from parliament or the executive” (Analysis, August 6th).
There is no basis for this view in the Constitution, or anywhere else.
Article 13.8.1 says that the President “shall not be answerable to either house of the Oireachtas”. As the High Court explained as far back as 1981, this means that the President cannot be brought before the Dáil or an Oireachtas Committee to answer for how he conducts himself, and as the Supreme Court found last June, it means that the Oireachtas can’t require the President to comply with any legislation which seeks to hold him to account.
However, the Dáil or Seanad is in no way prevented from debating or criticising the comments or actions of the President in his absence. And yet a convention has arisen whereby the Constitution is routinely cited as grounds to prevent TDs and Senators from referring to the President in any kind of critical fashion during Oireachtas debates.
Donald Clarke: What kind of Christmas songs are Jingle Bells and Winter Wonderland? Funny you should ask
A Dublin scam: After more than 10 years in New York, nothing like this had ever happened to me
The top 25 women’s sporting moments of the year: top spot revealed with Katie Taylor, Rhasidat Adeleke and Kellie Harrington featuring
Former Tory minister Steve Baker: ‘Ireland has been treated badly by the UK. It’s f**king shaming’
The Ceann Comhairle, Seán Ó Fearghaíl, told TDs recently that they couldn’t engage in “analysis or debate on the statements of the President”. Last year, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, Senator Mark Daly, issued an extraordinary instruction to Senators that the President “should not be criticised directly or indirectly”, but that they could “praise the President all you wish”.
These positions have no basis either in the Constitution, or the standing orders of either House, and represent a wild overstatement of the constraints which apply to the Oireachtas in its dealings with the President.
If the President can comment on political issues, then the normal rules of any free democracy would allow that TDs, Senators and the Government can respond to counter his comments, in strong terms if necessary. Our Constitution does not contain any bar to this.
The notion that any person – let alone the holder of a directly elected political office – should be immune from criticism, ought to be repugnant in any republic. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.