A thorough review of decision N ° 2 / E / 2019 on the suspension of the list of candidates for the presidential election of February 24, 2019 indicates the incredible incitement of the Constitutional Council in the analysis of the admissibility of the candidacy of the Khalifa SALL. To understand the legal weakness of the argument of the Constitutional Council and the lack of motivation to recognize the candidature of Khalifa SALL invalid, refer to page 11 of the document. Among the 7 points (from paragraph 67 of document 67, where it is concluded that the application is inadmissible), two main considerations should be noted: t
- Legal analysis of items 63 and 65 of decision No. 2 / E / 2019
A-Note 63 : " Taking into account that the postponement of the appeal on the issues of law in criminal cases results from the prevention of the implementation of the decision of the Court of Appeal before the expiration of the term for the implementation of the cassation appeal, and in case of appeal in time before the decision of the Supreme Court, if it is a decision of the rejection, and outside it , if this is the decision of the cassation proceedings ". All scholars and observers noted that the Council did not produce any articles, no text on this item, 63 which is crucial in assessing the candidacy of Khalifa SALL. When it comes to the fact that the appeal is a suspension in criminal cases, it is necessary to clarify and directly refer to the article of the organic law 2017-09 dated January 17, 2017, which provides for this. In this case, article 36 of the organic law defines the issues for which the appeal is postponed. Case number 4 deals with criminal matters. It's clear, clean and accurate. This is the lack of harshness and errors in the assessment of the law, which are inadmissible for a higher court, as the Constitutional Council. Nobody is deceiving: referring to article 36, it is imperative to bring the Constitutional Council to cause a closure (Article 52), and inevitably leads to the admissibility of the candidacy of the Caliph SALL. In conclusion, in Art. 63 does not contain any reason, since it is not supported by any text (very insufficient motivation, rather than zeroing).
B-Conspectus 65 : " Considering that the decision to refuse the Supreme Court results from the execution of the decision of the Court of Appeal, which retains this character, until the Supreme Court decision is canceled » First, there is a conscious confusion, which is supported by the Council between Recovery No. 63, which deals with suspension in the event of an appeal. within the term before the Supreme Court decision if this is a deviationand Article 65, which provides that the decision of the Court of Appeal remains intact until the decision of the Supreme Court is annulled. The subject is not the decision of the Court of Appeal, but the postponed nature of the arrest scrap, which the Council tried to avoid by all erroneous means. The Constitutional Council deliberately and illegally handed down the decision of the Court of Appeal, since the arrest warrant was finally lost by the regime with the publication of the document by the Head of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (Abdurakhman DIOUF). This is extremely difficult, since the Senegalese law is formal: every citizen is considered innocent until all the remedies provided (appeal court, appeal and, if necessary, stop) are exhausted. Secondly, the Constitutional Council does not refer to any text and does not impose a single law to substantiate its argument at the Art. Tiberto, the Constitutional Council demonstrated intellectual dishonesty, using the term "recall". The law of recall is that the magistrate reviews the decision already made. There are three hypotheses that allow a judge to refuse a decision: "(1) where the decision contains a technical error (2), where it was recognized that the decision is not true and where the non-obligor party is concerned. & # 39; or (3) referral to the review. " For Khalifa SALL, the subject of arrest is the closure of the Supreme Court judgment of January 3, 2019, which was erroneous in a procedural error (even the composition of the criminal chamber in the court session of December 2018). It should be noted that "The annulment of a court decision on the issue of a procedure, such as the non-compliance of the court, entails the complete cancellation of the decision on the merits of the case, even if in no way criticized the merits" Extract from the Information Bulletin of the Supreme Court No. 9 and 10 "page 43 – 2017 year), inThroughout the entire page, the Constitutional Council tried to avoid the use of the term "stop" (instead), as appropriate. Articles 63 and 65, which underlie the inadmissibility of the use of the Caliph SALL, did not apply any articles of the law. The arguments presented are based on bold legal interpretations that are only mandatory for the Constitutional Council and are not based on any legal provisions.
The lack of motivation does not apply only to paragraphs 63 and 65. On the same page 11, (Article 62), the Constitutional Council tried to give a decisive character to decision No. 454 of the Dakar Appeal Court. The main purpose of the applicant's application is to cancel the decision of the Court of Appeal, which is unfavorable to him.
- The inadmissibility of the Chalifa SALL is not based on any text
The company of misinformation, which is to assume that the Constitutional Council motivates its decision by declaring the inappropriate candidacy of Khalifa SALL to be, is completely false. A thorough reading of page 11 of the decision of the Constitutional Council (more precisely, Constitutional Articles 63 and 65) is similar to the winner, a method consisting in using the term "recall" or the choice chosen for crossing. benchmarks (formerbefore the expiration of the term for lodging an appeal, as well as in case of lodging an appeal in the term up to the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of a decision to refuse, as well as a cassation decision … ". Inappropriate use should be supported by texts, rather than concise and general formulas. Provisions 63 and 65 do not contain legal grounds. Announcing the inappropriate candidacy of Khalifa SALL, the Constitutional Council exceeded its powers, violated the law and completely twisted Articles 36 and 52 of the Organic Supreme Arbitration Law on Arrest. Moreover, members of the Constitutional Council lacked courage, betrayed the oath and failed to fulfill their mission.
The Constitutional Council in its current configuration is not a reliable body. This is a biased and erroneous institution whose decisions are not in accordance with the law. In the contribution entitled "What is justice for democracy in Africa?" "- wrote the president of the Constitutional Council, Pope Umar SAHO "In Africa, the law serves as an excuse for political leaders who built their power on terror and barbarism to meet rogue interests." Today, a person has become a graveyard of democracy in Senegal, armed with the hand of McCoy Salla and the kite of the adversaries.
In the period of turbulence that Senegal is experiencing, the abolition of the Constitutional Council, the factor of turmoil will be fully justified.
Seibani SOGUU – E-mail: [email protected]