Law-savvy Presidents needed to spare us another scare?

Law-savvy Presidents neede?

Will it be a necessity and mandatory for would be Presidential candidates to be law-savvy in order to spare us another scare?

Is this possible?

The recent crisis surrounding the case of exiting President Ameenah Gurib-Fakim is the focus point.

Experts – in law and politics – are clamouring the President is law-ignorant.

The intricacies of the law escape the laymen and women.

It is not for the general public to understand the minute details

lesser still the complications of the clauses when applied in situations of constitutional crises.

The President, duped into believing a certain clause allowed her to bypass the legislative power is clearly law-ignorant.

in this scenario, is it wise to have Presidents with little or zero legal knowledge?

The crisis revolves around the Section 64 which states “in his own deliberate judgement’.

By all means, this clearly puts Gurib-Fakim in the fix.

These clauses do not exist by chance. They are the work of legislators with strong law backgrounds.

Was Gurib-Fakim either tricked or made to believe by her team of lawyers that the clause in Section 64 was sufficient for her to make her move?

Believing this, she staged the commission of inquiry and appointed Sir Hamid Moolan.

The latter believing it was a lawful move accepted the offer.

Nevertheless, later Sir Hamid basically removed himself as the chair of the inquest.

In this aspect of the staging of the inquest, were the lawyers advising the President wrong in their understanding of the clauses?

However, this is blatant unprofessionalism if its the case.

In the defence of Gurib-Fakim, she has very little knowledge of the law and definitely a poor understanding of the clauses involved here.

All Presidential candidates must make an effort to be law-savvy in order to be dutiful in their job!

This will also prevent the manipulation of the President by political parties!