The first occurrence in a U.S. courtroom of Nicolás Maduro provided an insight into the forthcoming legal battle over the questions to be addressed infrequently, with the primary one being whether he is allowed to invoke immunity against prosecution.

When Maduro emerged not guilty of narco-terrorism and cocaine charges on Monday, he dared the establishment of a showdown on the law protections traditionally granted to heads of state.

The lawyer, Barry Pollack, indicated a second line of attack in the arraignment, promising that they would bring voluminous litigation over what Pollack called the abduction of Maduro and his wife by the U.S. military on Saturday.

The core of the case is whether Maduro, 63, is under the protective umbrella of the law of head-of-state immunity before international law, an immunity doctrine that would shield Maduro against prosecution due to his alleged involvement in what the Justice Department calls a decades-long narco-terrorist plot.

The U.S. also claims that Maduro is not the president of Venezuela after a contested election in 2018 in which he was re-elected – a fact that would lead to a negative finding on whether he should be granted head-of-state immunity.

However, the attorney general of Venezuela opposes that the United States has no jurisdiction and that Maduro is not subject to the law as he is the leader of the country.

Caren Morrison, a law professor at Georgia State College of Law and a former federal prosecutor, said that immunity may be an issue for prosecutors, who argue that Maduro was corrupt and utilized his office in the conspiracy.

According to legal analysts, the question that could appear in the case is whether the alleged actions of Maduro fall under his presidential mandate or not. The majority of people suppose that prosecutors have a high chance of winning eventually.

NORIEGA had unsuccessfully appealed to a similar argument

There is not a high level of litigation on cases of head-of-state immunity. It was unsuccessfully invoked against drug trafficking and money laundering charges against former Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega after his capture by the United States during the Panama invasion in 1989. In contrast to Maduro, Noriega did not get the official status of a president.

The U.S. courts have barred lawsuits against heads of state accepted by the State Department, such as in 1975 against Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and in 2022 against the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the murder of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

However, cases brought against former leaders and other government officials can also be dismissed by courts, as they can demonstrate that it was their line of duty. They are, however, liable for some illegal acts.

A civil action against a former prime minister of Somalia ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which had to send it back to a lower court that determined that he was not above accountability for the tortures and extrajudicial murders.

Defense to Press Case against Abduction

Also, Maduro, through his counsel, found another avenue of resistance, namely the prosecution on the basis of immunity, which, on Monday, his lawyer informed the court that his client would also challenge what he described as the military abduction of the leader, which scholars argued might contravene international law.

Noriega also presented such an argument in response to his arrest, but a federal appeals court denied it, citing judicial decisions of the Supreme Court that forcible abduction does not amount to a violation of due process or a court having jurisdiction over a defendant.

In 1992, a U.S. jury condemned Noriega, and he served his terms in the United States, France, and Panama, where he passed away in 2017.

They can impose the burden on prosecutors to establish ties to other people with MADURO.

In case Maduro is not able to have the indictment dismissed, legal experts argue that he still could challenge the case presented by the government.

The indictment outlines a years-long drug enterprise, although there are not many activities that can directly link Maduro to the alleged narcotics and terrorism conspiracy, as presented by U.S. prosecutors.

“Closer to the truth, though,” said Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma, a defense lawyer, “when you look at that indictment, there is not much”, Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios, a former Venezuelan official who admitted to being a narco-terrorist, in it.

The prosecutors have to demonstrate that Maduro conspired with others to commit a crime to prove conspiracy. The indictment lacks connections with terrorist organizations, according to a professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, Richard Broughton.

He said, “The Justice Department perhaps is withholding evidence to save the faces of witnesses.”

“Did Maduro and his associates pay a specific terrorist group to offer any form of protection, to help in any type of shipment?” Broughton said. That is the type of thing that I would like to know.