Luanda – Angolan constitutionalist Carlos Feijó has considered “unconstitutional the Constitutional Court (TC)” ruling on preventive inspection process of Draft revision of Constitution, forwarded by President of Republic João Lourenço.
In an interview with TV Zimbo on Thursday in Luanda, the university professor explained that the decision 688/2021 “violates the principles of limits and consistency which must prevail in the action” of this Court.
CC judges returned this week the text to the President of the Republic, declaring that the bill approved by the Parliament “complies with the principles and limits established in articles 232, 234, 235 and 237 of the Constitution of the Republic of Angola (CRA), with the exception of paragraphs 5 of article 181, 4 of article 182, 4 of article 183 and 6 of 184, which flout the material limits of the Magna law “.
In their ruling, the Constitutional Court’s judges suggest that the respective bill be sent back to the Parliament in order to scrap these articles.
The constitutional expert is of the view that in obedience to the principles of self-limitation, the institution, within the framework of the preventive inspection, should be limited to “jurisdictional matters, and avoid justice” in political matters.
He accused the Court of also abusing the principle of non-control of the legislative power, saying that it does not have the power to decide the merits or demerits of the political options of the legislator and of violating the principle of congruence, by going beyond the material requested.
Faced with an unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court, without further institution of appeal, he said that the President of the Republic must submit the document to the National Assembly (AN), which has the legislative power to strike out what is considered as unconstitutional.
Maintenance of the standard by the National Assembly
He stressed that if he were a MP, he would maintain the norm, adding that the National Assembly has the power to maintain the norm as it approved it, since the Constitutional Court is a passive body and cannot take the initiative to review the amendments to the Constitution.
Asked about the reasons for the inconsistency of a body in charge of controlling the Constitution, he replied that the Courts have argumentative legitimacy for decisions, while the legislative power has popular legitimacy.
The coordinator of the technical commission that prepared the 2010 Constitution qualified as unfounded the fact that the CC considers unconstitutional the obligation to report to the National Assembly, because there is a theory of public accountability in the exercise of the sovereign function of the state.
The former head of the Civil Affairs Office to the President of the Republic clarified that the responsibility, expressed in the draft revision of the Constitution, does not violate the principle of the separation of powers, because in a democratic regime no sovereign body is free of public control by the National Assembly, which represents the people.
This is a report on the state of justice and not on specific judicial decisions, he said in his interview with TV Zimbo.
According to Carlos Feijó, the delay in the response to the preventive inspection of the constitutional revision by the CC should lead to civil and public liability, warning that the act could delay the electoral preparation process and the logistics necessary for the election.
Approval of the electoral law without completion of the constitutional revision
Opening a parenthesis he considered odd the fact that the National Assembly approved the electoral law without completing the process of constitutional revision, recalling that the primary legislative power belongs to the AN. “There is no legal obligation to consult, and if so, it is not binding,” he said.
The constitutional expert declared that there is no hierarchical relationship between the Higher Courts, although the Constitutional has the power to refute the decisions of other Courts.
According to Carlos Feijó, the judiciary is a technical career, in which the performance is evaluated, while in the political career, the candidate depends on popular acceptance in the ballot box, which legitimizes him.
As for the resignation of the President of the Constitutional Court, he declared that it was foreseeable, due, according to the constitutional expert, to the difficulties in reaching a consensus, stressing that in his place he would have already resigned a year ago.
Manuel Aragão expressed to the President of the Republic on Thursday his desire to cease the functions as President of the Constitutional Court, a request accepted by the President João Lourenço.
Manuel Aragão made the request two days after voting against the partial revision of the Constitution, arguing that there were setbacks in some issues concerning the separation of powers.
Source: Angola Press News Agency