The combination of immunity from prosecution and unfettered personal power underpins many of the most infamous corruption cases involving politicians.

For more information on this topic, please read TI's Global Corruption Report on political corruption (2004).

There is a clear rationale for granting some degree of immunity to politicians. In general they have immunity for actions they carry out and speeches made in performance of their duties, in order to prevent politically motivated legal attacks. But there should be strict limitations. Immunity should protect the office that the politician holds – not the politicians – as a means of guaranteeing the continuity of the office and the separation between the executive, legislature and judiciary. Immunity should not be a shield against justice. For instance there is often no immunity when a politician is caught in flagrante delicto, and there are typically procedures through which immunity can be lifted for serious crimes such as high treason, abuse of power or gross mismanagement in office.

In several countries politicians, particularly heads of state, have much broader immunity, sometimes extending back to before their term of office. Worryingly, many governments have chosen to extend immunity privileges in the past few years. In June 2003 the Italian government pushed through legislation to expand immunity for a handful of senior political figures, including the prime minister who was at the time facing trial for corruption. The move was subsequently overturned by the constitutional court. In Kyrgyzstan, a referendum in February 2003 strengthened the immunity of the president and all members of parliament.

The second legal hurdle – extradition – can prove just as intractable, although legal instruments that call for better international cooperation to bring corrupt officials to justice, such as the UN Convention against Corruption, should make it more difficult for governments to ignore the pleas of foreign courts. The case of former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori illustrates the need for cooperation between foreign governments and judicial systems. Japan has refused to extradite him to face multiple criminal charges for crimes ranging from money laundering and embezzlement, to involvement in grave human rights violations.

Related to the question of how to bring corrupt politicians to justice is a second question: how to repatriate the wealth they stole? Some progress has been made in this area. Switzerland has begun to make exceptions to its strict bank secrecy policy and is making inroads to repatriate money laundered through Swiss accounts. The UN Convention against Corruption – which has yet to obtain the 30 ratifications needed to enter into force – could be enormously significant, since it contains provisions for mutual legal assistance that obligate countries to return pillaged assets to requesting countries.