[ad_1]
Like his counterparts scattered across the African landmbad, this gentleman is perfectly guilty of genocide and offenses whose female consent is an essential element.
The European Court of Wandering African Presidents and Political Scouts of Eastern Europe, based in the Netherlands, reported a desire to take it and eventually, to house it forever. In one way or another, he is really trying to hide his bloody past.
Fearing prosecution, he did what many African presidents do when they approach the end of their constitutional terms. He amended the country's constitution and removed the limitation of the presidential term. He will probably die in the office. African dictators are bound by the fortune of undesirable longevity. Of course, it is antithetical to constitutionalism to amend the Constitution for the benefit of one person. Constitutions are national instruments to be changed only in the public interest. That is why, despite the many excesses we have endured over the past 10 years, there is something to be said for our former leader.
He never tried to tinker with the Constitution to extend his reign or increase his powers. He left the Constitution as he found it. He simply exploited his many weaknesses. When he wanted to increase cabinet positions to kill backbench dissidents, he did it.
When he wanted to appoint flexible judges from the High Court and the Court of Appeal, he did so. When he wanted to endow the Judicial Commission (CSJ) with political appointments, he did it. Of course, the standard response of the government's enclave was invariably "there is nothing illegal" even though ethics was being slaughtered on the altar of legalism at tight lips. However, this does not subtract the fact that he resigned when he had to do it. It's not easy to wake up one morning to hitchhike on a creaky kite in Mosu when a few months ago you had dozens of choppers serviced and fully powered on call. When I saw his picture next to this single engine probably borrowed from a pesticide company, I almost cried. But it is exemplary constitutionalism. I do not complain at all.
I was happy to hear, the other day, that the president is seeking to pbad constitutional amendments, among others, to allow him to fill executive positions with non-politicians . However, this is not the substance of the reform that I celebrate. This is the glimmer of ambition of the constitutional reform that I find exciting. The question is to know where
he will be ready to go. There are vast reforms to undertake and what he aspires to do is only one of them. Far from piecemeal reform, we need a comprehensive constitutional review. We need to move to a post-liberal dispensation that places controls on executive power and maintains the institutional integrity of supervisory institutions. The JSC, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Independent Electoral Commission, the Directorate of the fight against corruption and economic crime, the Ombudsman and the judiciary, among others, must be released and protected by the Constitution. There are post-liberal models to compare with. As a country, we can reclaim our position as a continental leader in constitutional and institutional governance. We do not need to rely on fictitious reports named international organizations to shape our image.
We have learned from experience over the past 10 years how vulnerable our Constitution is. It's too basic and too flexible. It has very little or no counterweight to executive power. By simple public appointment instrument, our democracy can be devastated. I remember a time when I was at the DPP. Our then chief, now a judge of the Court of Appeal, had just gone on judicial appointment. We were without a leader for a while. It was a period of serious anxiety. We knew that senior officials hated our guts.
The executive felt besieged, perhaps even driven out by witches, by the DPP's office. The young magistrates told the ministers when to get up and when to sit down. The answer was emphatic. The next DPP was put together with the DIS, a blindly loyal, politically irresponsible and under the President. After all, there was nothing illegal in the appointment
Whenever key constitutional reforms are proposed, the tendency of those who take advantage of our constitutional vulnerability is to parrot; "It served us well." It's an absurd argument, if there is one.
You are not modernizing the systems because they have not served you well. You upgrade because there is room for improvement and because you want to bring your game to another level.
If the president reaches a single constitutional amendment, there will be almost nothing to congratulate him. We have already seen it. If he can have the courage to develop key reforms for constitutional and institutional governance, he will leave a legacy the nation will be grateful for the day it will be ousted from parliament. And I could just shed a tear for a president.
[ad_2]
Source link
