I have not read such rubbish as this article for many years. To distill what this writer said, because the President is a former judge at the local level and at the ICC, and because he was politically appointed Senior Counsel (we know of several of those, don't we?), then he must not be questioned over his actions?
Utter tripe. No one is above the law. No one. “Be ye ever so high, still the Law is above Thee.”
What Dr Robert Williams really is saying is that the President should get a free pass into his activities, including spending, just because... well, just because he is the President. Clearly, not a thought people would be comfortable with, neither does it fit with the Rule of Law. No one is persecuting the President either. Having regard for the law and wanting a reasonable investigation into dubious practice cannot be a persecution if the investigating authorities are dragging thier feet or refusing to conduct said investigations. I fully endorse such an investigation, especially since every time the President opens his mouth, his statements are later proven to be lies.
"Some people are under the misguided impression or are deliberately being fed the erroneous or twisted information that the President can allocate money to himself as in the present circumstances. This is far from the truth. He cannot. For example, monies for his travels must be approved by Cabinet and his housing allowance must be approved by agencies such as the Auditor General’s Office."
While the above may be true (and I doubt it is), the question that arises from what refutations were made by those same bodies is that undue Presidential influence was brought to bear on them to approve the allowances and expenditures. This too is being questioned and should be part of any investigation.
" I believe an explanation on the housing allowance was given and it had to do with the inadequate and deplorable conditions of the Flagstaff facilities the President and his family were being housed in."
More rubbish. The law is quite clear. Once you have Government Housing, you are NOT entitled to Housing Allowance. The question of conditions is moot. It simply does not arise. If as the President said, the facilities were not fit for entertaining as per his status, I am sure any functions were catered at other venues and paid for by public purse. So again, the question of a Housing Allowance to cover this simply does not arise.
"Whether the President was entitled or not to the allocation is a matter that will have to be properly determined with all the facts and not by an attorney sitting in London and forming an opinion on limited information."
Yes, and all that is being asked is an investigation to clear up the facts and determine whether all is above board. So far, by not having an investigation, the facts are obfuscated and actually do disservice to the Presidential reputation and office. Dr Williams should therefore be glad of any clarity brought to the fore by such an investigation.
Dr Williams need reign in his unwarranted defence of the President, under the dubious guise of defending the Office of the President.