The Central African Constitutional Court on Friday, September 23, declared the committee charged with drafting a new constitution invalid. Highly criticized in this small country of about five million people, the proposed revision of the fundamental law is the subject of controversy. For the opposition, the project aims to allow President Faustin-Archange Touadéra to run for a third term.
The Central African Supreme Court objected on Friday to the presidential decree that established the committee in charge of drafting a new constitution for the country. In an address broadcast on national radio, the supreme judges spoke of the reasons for the invalidity of the committee. The result is that “the revision of the Constitution can only be carried out after the establishment of the Senate”, whereas the Central African Republic does not have a Senate. As a result, the court added that the decrees “are unconstitutional and invalidated”.
Elected in 2016 and re-elected in 2020 in an election contested by the opposition, President Faustin-Archange Touadéra had made a commitment to the Central African constitution: “I swear before God and the nation to scrupulously observe the Constitution (…) nor to revise the number and length of my term of office,” he had declared when he took the oath. Consequently, the court considers that this commitment is irrevocable.
Installed in mid-September by the head of state himself, the drafting committee for the new constitution is made up of some fifty personalities who are supposed to represent all segments of Central African society. They were given three months to submit a new basic law. The Catholic Church and the main opposition parties refused to take part.
The president had justified this project of revision of the constitution by people’ will. “Faithful to my republican commitment, I cannot remain insensitive to the pressing demand of my people for a new fundamental law. The Constitution of March 30, 2016, does not confer on the President of the Republic or any other institution the power to stand before popular sovereignty, to limit or prevent the exercise of that sovereignty. I have noted that the majority of our compatriots believe that our legal corpus should not be immutable, it must adapt,” he had said
