The events of April 4, 2024, have etched a significant chapter in our country’s constitutional history. The non-renewal of the Constitutional Court on this date ignited fervent discussions among civil society and the legal community. The institution’s pivotal role in upholding the rule of law took center stage, fueling heated debates and contrasting viewpoints.
While some passionately advocated for the renewal of constitutional judges’ mandates, citing the explicit provisions in Article 7 of the Court’s organic law mandating the replacement of members before their term expiration, others contested the necessity, arguing that the absence of renewal does not automatically question the Court’s legitimacy or legality.
CREEDA, represented by its vice-president Paulin Punga, stood in favor of renewal, emphasizing the critical need to uphold the Court’s legitimacy and adhere to the non-renewable nature of judges’ mandates.
Conversely, voices like prominent lawyer Willy Wenga countered that renewal may not be obligatory, asserting that the law does not explicitly mandate it and, therefore, does not undermine the Court’s standing.
This unprecedented situation triggered intense debates on the essence of the Constitutional Court and the interpretation of the laws governing its operations. Regardless of the outcomes, one undeniable truth emerged—the preservation of our democracy hinges on upholding fundamental rules to ensure institutional efficacy and the rule of law.
In conclusion, it is imperative for authorities to make judicious decisions that honor the Constitution to safeguard our legal institutions’ integrity and functionality. The discourse surrounding the Constitutional Court’s renewal underscores the paramount importance of upholding the independence and legitimacy of bodies entrusted with upholding democratic and constitutional principles.
Leave a Reply