Overview of the Legal Liabilities of Public Officers Essay

Overview of the Legal Liabilities of Public Officers - Essay ExampleAlbeit, litigations filed hostile to the public officers, administrative officer and offices are progressively being termed as f sufficeions or perpetrators with immediate or delegated liability. Furthermore, in order to cite their profound liabilities to the least possible, public officers should constantly take action in the interior of the extent of their functions, project and be familiar with the rules and regulations of their corresponding subdivisions, keep precise and correct inscribed records in contentious cases, have-to doe with effective interactions with the society, and continually refer to legal advisors in cases where there is uncertainty in the course of action. However, around often than none, public officials are favoured with official impunity. Public officers run for office to acquire wealth and power. In some countries, abuses of power are rampant and are being used as leverage for their individualized objectives. As a result, extrajudicial killings become widespread and rambling. This particular study seeks to elaborate on the legal liabilities of public officers. In addition, this should inform the reader regarding the scope of functions of public officers on the whole and provide experience or grounds of assessment from which discretion towards public officers can be obtained. OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 2 Introduction The fair play under which government officials operate permits them to inflict injury on others, under confirming circumstances, in established ways, and in carefully (and sometimes non so carefully) calibrated amounts (Mashaw, 1978). Undeniably, in the carrying into action of duty of public officials, unethical use of power is always a possibility. Public officials, under the authorization of the law, are allowed to at least cause injury on others. Albeit their authority to do so is trammel by the existing laws, m b oth public officials are leveraging this prerogative to serve their personal interests. This gives them the hazard to impose coercion in influencing the decision or leanings of their constituents to favour their individual goals, especially during times of election or in passing a particular governmental project from which they can corrupt grand amounts of money. Certainly, the law carries on. What is more alarming is that it sometimes tells the official that a failure to injure - that is, to coerce conformation with a predetermined rule of conduct - is a dereliction of official duty (Mashaw, 1978). While the law is clear that the authority to cause injury on others is delimited on certain grounds, oftentimes, this is being lose and exploited. The interpretation of the law becomes superficial and unconstitutional. It is rather disturbing why the constitution provides such sorts of law that act on the borderline between its use to perform official duty and the feasibility of mis using it. This study does not resolve this weakness but presents the manifold possibilities of divergence from the real intents of the law. The public officials therefore should be cognizant of their legal liabilities. They should carefully interpret the laws provided for them by the constitution. Inasmuch as they have the freedom to use it in any manner they wish to, they OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 3 should remember the consequences that it carry. By and large, the purpose of this paper is not to solely scrutinize the validity and the applicability of the law, but to elaborate on the various