In the midst of the turmoil following the 100 million gourde scandal at the BNC, the presiding councilors: Dr. Louis Gérald Gilles, Emmanuel Vertilaire and Smith Augustin chose to go, on their own initiative, to the offices of the Anti-Corruption Unit (ULCC) this Tuesday. This decision, described by some as a “thunderbolt”, has sparked a wave of skepticism. Is this a genuine act of transparency or a well-orchestrated strategy to calm public opinion?
The affair broke out when Raoul Pierre-Louis’ lawyer, Me Sonet Saint-Louis, revealed during the show “Se sa nou vle”, hosted by Rudy Sanon, that his client had been approached by 3 advisor-presidents for a sum of 100 million gourdes. In exchange, they had guaranteed Pierre-Louis his continued position as head of the BNC board of directors. Since these revelations, many political and civil society voices have demanded the resignation of the incriminated advisors or, at the very least, the opening of a judicial investigation.
Faced with the accusations, Smith Augustin, one of the main parties concerned, tried to hide behind the argument of presidential immunity, by asserting that presidential advisors benefit from the same protections as the head of state. However, this defense was quickly dismantled by several legal experts, who point out that presidential immunity only applies to acts strictly related to presidential functions, as defined by the Haitian Constitution. Requesting funds has nothing to do with these prerogatives, and wanting to hide behind this immunity seems to be a desperate attempt to escape justice.
This morning, against all expectations, Smith Augustin and Emmanuel Vertilaire went to the ULCC offices to answer the investigators’ questions. Louis Gérald Gilles joined them later in the day. Their voluntary approach took many observers by surprise, particularly because, according to several lawyers, the ULCC does not normally have the authority to summon these senior officials. According to Me Sonet Saint-Louis, on Radio Scoop FM, such a summons could only be made at the request of their peer advisors or in the event of resignation.
This decision could mark a turning point in the management of this scandal. By implicitly waiving their immunity to submit to the investigators’ questions, the three presidential advisers are opening the way to a thorough examination of the accusations brought against them. This stance is seen as a gesture of transparency, but it could also redefine the contours of presidential immunity in Haiti.
Public opinion, awaiting the conclusions of the ULCC, is following this affair closely.
