The constitution is the set of written or customary rules that determine the form of the state, the devolution and the exercise of power. It is the basic law of the Republic. Placed at the top of the hierarchy of norms, the constitution recalls the commitment of the Central African people to human rights and the principle of national sovereignty. Its preamble recalls the principles of democracy ie the indivisibility of the country, secularism and the equality of citizens before the law without distinction of origin, race or religion.
The Constitutional Court is the judicial body responsible for ensuring compliance with the constitution and the constitutionality of administrative acts. The republican tradition according to the provisions of article 38 of the constitution of March 30, 2016 obliges the President of the Republic to pronounce the following sentence during the swearing: “Me … ..I swear to God and to the nation of scrupulously observe the constitution … to conscientiously fulfill the duties of my office without any consideration of an ethical, regional or confessional nature “.
Embarrassed by the reading of the provisions of this Article 38 of the constitution, the average citizen wonders in economics of the security aspect: Does the President of the Republic scrupulously observe the constitution? Following the logical sequence, does the President of the Republic fulfill the duties of his office without regard to ethnic, regional or confessional? Dubitatif, the average citizen is interested in the recent acts of the elected representative of the nation.
First the Presidential decree of 12 September 2017 appointing members of the government. Through this decree, the President of the Republic has brought into the government representatives of armed groups known to be known as sponsors of rapes, crimes, assassinations, humiliations, looting and abuses of all kinds on the Central African people.
While the guarantor of the constitution is without ignoring the content of paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the constitution which provides: “any natural or legal person who organizes support actions, disseminates or disseminates statements to support a a coup d’etat, a rebellion or an attempt to seize power by mutiny or by any other means is considered as co-author “. In addition, paragraph 3 of the same article provides: “Authors, co-authors or accomplices of the acts referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be prohibited from performing any public function in State institutions”. Thus, by seeking the services of these rebels, the President of the Republic did not violate the constitution?
Article 124 of the constitution considers as a crime of high treason non-compliance with the oath. Pending the appreciation of the experienced in constitutional law, a charismatic opinion leader, President of a political party, still misunderstood successive regimes has brought an action for annulment before the Council of State. Out of mistrust, the Council of State preferred to resign from its responsibilities by declaring itself incompetent on the grounds that the decree taken by the Head of State has a political character.
It should be recalled that the Council of State knowingly ignored that the power of political appointment entrusted by the constitution to the President of the Republic is by nature an administrative act of the administrative court and consequently of the state council last spring.
With regard to the highly disputed decree appointing prefects and sub-prefects, the presidency opposes the discretionary power of the President of the Republic. We wish to remind the authorities that the discretionary power is subject to the principle of legality, should not be controversial and should not weaken republican institutions (reactions and challenges of the political class). When reading successive regimes, the discretionary power must be distinguished from the monarchical power synonymous with dictatorship.
As a result, discretion as defined by power leads to skids, drifts. Finally, we discuss the thorny issue of the twenty judicial police officers selected to support the Special Criminal Court. Indeed, a selection commission has been set up by the international community to retain judicial police officers.
Twenty laureates were selected after the test. The keeper of the seals, on the basis of non-formal criteria (gender criteria, regional balance, non-primacy of an ethnic group) replaced ten of the twenty laureates. Surprised by the list of winners validated by decree, the international community was quick to Indeed, a selection commission has been set up by the international community to retain judicial police officers.
Twenty laureates were selected after the test. The keeper of the seals, on the basis of non-formal criteria (gender criteria, regional balance, non-primacy of an ethnic group) replaced ten of the twenty laureates. Surprised by the list of winners validated by decree, the international community was quick to show its indignation by boycotting and suspending funding for the Special Criminal Court. The interference of the President of the Republic in this process of recruitment led by the Keeper of the Seals is an obstacle, a serious violation of the independence of the judiciary guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution.
Thus, is the exclusion of candidates from a competition for reasons of ethnic, regional and gender primacy based on a legally valid ground? Membership in an ethnic group, a region where a religion is incompatible with the exercise of the function? Do the Central African authorities also fear the establishment of the Special Criminal Court? How much funding has the country already lost because of such practices?
Why do you want to insert people other than the lucky ones? Why are Central African parliamentarians not interested in this issue? At this stage of amateurism, will we still look for a scapegoat elsewhere? Will we still accuse the opposition? We oppose to the initiators of this maneuvers the famous Barel decision of the Council of State of May 28, 1954 (Recueil the great judgments of the administrative jurisprudence, page 515).
In fact, in this case a candidate had been excluded from a competition for his political opinions. This judgment, along with the conclusions of the Letourneur government commissioner, defines the limits of discretion and recalls that the principle of equality of candidates for a competition and the impartiality of the jury are inviolable and guaranteed by the constitution.
As a consequence of the foregoing, we humbly request the authorities concerned to reinstate the injured parties in their right. But be careful, do not tell anyone .. If you are asked, do not say it’s me.