Immunity, as a concept and principle of practice for constitutional law, in a simplified definition, is for the holder of such ticket, to have a legal safeguard, by virtue of risk imposed naturally from duty, in goodfate, as posits by Senzu [1] in his legal brief, doctrine of immunity and governance; constitutional law issue.
All State Institutions are creatures of law, thou, become an entity of persona, yet, cannot function independently, in exercising of it powers and obligations, unless an entrusted Office-holders, of human form, to manifest under a regulatory conditions.
Therefore, their functions as State Institutions or National Corporations via human skill-sets, professional intelligence, and prerogative decisions, when inefficiently applied or inappropriately executed, in good fate, with consequence thereof, to potential victims, could necessitate for uncountable legal remedies, against an Institution or Corporation, only serving as indirect and legitimate patroniser, in human affairs. Hence, need to be legally protected from such unwarranted legal suits, the essence and relevance of the concept, Absolute Immunity, as legal safeguard for Statutory Institutions, to permanently bar them, from any legal attacks.
However, the complexity to the question of Immunity, in principle of equity, as justified, is more to the Agent, as a human, functioning in the capacity, as Office holder to such statutory Institutions, with inadvertent mistakes, and repercussions to the benefactors. Thou, invoke the realm of the Court for the debate, on procedural reasoning, to examine whether the actions of the Office-holders, is of guilty intent, or mistakes out of negligence, and lack of duty of care, [2] as posits in the legal article of Senzu [3] on the principle of goodfate: Immunity assessment lens of the Court. In that purpose, the Office-bearer is legally protected under a Qualified Immunity. With the implicit deduction that, actions of bad fate by the Office-bearers, in their exit from Office, could be tried before a competent Court of Jurisdiction, for justification and redemption. While the Office-bearer is protected with Qualified Immunity, it must be acknowledged, all Office duties, is inherent with certain degree of risk, unavoidable as humans, therefore, lack of legal protection makes the Office unattractive to serve, by proficient acumen.
The paradox with immunity application principle, is to have an Agent, to an absolute immune Office, seeking to obtain absolute immunity, as a status beyond the statutory office, thou, require a carefully conscripted immunity clauses of purpose, to sustain both the Agent, and the Institution, to safeguard them from any ramifications of their actions, either in good fate or bad fate, thou, inaccessible to any competent Court of Jurisdiction, to be tried.
REFERENCE
1. Senzu, T. E. ‘Doctrine of Immunity and Governance: Constitutional Law Issue.’ Blackstone Journal for Asia-Africa Jurists (2nd eds.) 2(31): 1-7. 2025. Philpapers Publishers, USA.
2. Senzu, T. E. ‘The Principle of Duty of Care: Common Law Doctrine.’ Blackstone Journal for Asia-Africa Jurists (3rd eds.) 10 (48):1-5.2026. Philpapers Publishers, USA.
3. Senzu, T. E. ‘The Principle of Goodfate: Immunity Assessment Lens of the Court’. Blackstone Journal for Asia-Africa Jurists (2nd eds.) 7(33):1-5, 2025. Philpapers Publishers, USA.
____________________________________
Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Utah, United States. Fellow, Ghana School of Law.
