Communist Party of Benin (PCB): Philippe Noudjènoumè is for workers and democratic organizations

Cotonou, November 3, 2011

The First Secretary
Party officials and patriotic organizations, Democratic, labor and Defense of Human Rights,

Workers, youth, women,

The people of Benin,

Since the last presidential and legislative elections, marked by the electoral hold-up as everyone knows, events of unusual severity assail your daily life. The slump in the vendors market, torture recurring the academic for parents with its share of problems, education destroyed by the devastating ravages of NPE, the factories that are closing due to lack of raw materials (textile mills , oil factories of all kinds), the abrupt rise in the prices of basic commodities following the implementation of the famous seals Import Verification Program and the misery that entails for the vast majority of the population, unemployment that hits all the youth, many of bullying soldier diplomacy failed, and so on. this is known. And complaints from markets, shops, fields, offices, lecture halls, barracks, resound from all sides and come to me.

But what is even more notable since the last hold-up is where the climbing starts Boni Yayi power for the establishment of a tyranny to Ben Ali or Eyadema Father. It is the frontal attack against the fundamental freedoms that are so far the pride of people of Benin and the adoption by the authority of an array of laws autocratic nature.

This is the area I want to talk about today.

In an address to the Deputies on 27 September 2011, I wrote: “Recently, a spate of projects or legislative proposals are laid before you in the National Assembly to be voted. The common feature of these projects and proposed legislation is the restriction if the liquidation of the fundamental freedoms gained popular struggles of 1989 and consecrated by the National Conference. It is as a combination of actions to each other from the government from the presidential majority in parliament. All have one goal: to muzzle the people and return to the dark period of the despotism Kérékou-PRPB. ” The momentum after the adoption of the law prohibiting strikes by customs and other officers, that the proposed referendum law which has just been made and soon it will be the law on strikes in fact an anti -strike, that is to say, the practice of prohibiting the strike to all workers.

In this regard, the final decision of the Constitutional Court Decision DCC 11-067 of 20 October 2011 by which the Constitutional Court ruled the compliance of the Organic Law on conditions for a referendum, is a milestone that sounds like a culmination of the plot of placing the gag completely to our people.

This decision is announced in newspapers of Monday, October 25, 2011 a strong positive feedback. “The Court shows its independence vis-à-vis YAYI” (The Morning). “The Court frustrates supporters YAYI” “The Court sent a strong signal to the presidential majority in Parliament,” etc.. Much that is written emphasize the ignorance of the authors in the field, or are sponsored by the very people who are interested in make-up of this thing that has committed so many crimes against democracy and the people of Benin Benin.

Let us look at the famous decision. Apart from the additions to the Referendum Act which are also rewriting the statute, the essential element that is the subject of media stream of praise is the rejection of Article 6 of the law passed, declaring it contrary to the Constitution and redrafting. I quote: “Considering that the review of the law shows that Article 6 is unconstitutional in that it does not cite all the basic options of the National Conference of February 1990 and are included in sections 42, 44 and 54 of the Constitution, it is the number of presidential terms, the age limit for candidates in the presidential election and the presidential nature of the political system in our country that the Article 6 should be reworded as follows:

“May not be the subject of questions to submit to referendum the basic options of the National Conference of February 1990, namely:

– The republican and secular state

– The attack on the integrity of national territory

– The presidential term of five years renewable once

– The age limit of at least 40 years and 70 years at most for any candidate in the presidential election;

– The type of presidential system of government in Benin”(Emphasis added)

Such a decision raises the following questions:

1 – The Constitution of Benin did she stay silent on issues that can not be subject to review? Certainly not. It was formal. She deals with Article 156 which provides: “No amendment procedure may be commenced or continued when he damaged the integrity of the territory. The republican and secular state can not be revised. “Where the Court of Holo-Dossou she pulled the other elements not subject to review, such as: – the presidential term five years, renewable once, – the age limit of at least 40 years and 70 years at most for any candidate in the presidential election – the presidential form of political regime in Benin? Of his imagination. Even the issue of territorial integrity is not a question in such terms directed by the Court decision. The issue of territorial integrity arises only when a condition of non-revision of the Constitution and is to be attached to an annexation of territory by foreign military action. What is said in the Constitution is that it can not initiate constitutional revision when part of the national territory is occupied by foreign forces. The case of transfer or gain of territory by the border delimitation agreement between Benin and its neighbors such is not considered here as the loss by Benin to the island of Lete before the ICJ is not a constitutional issue.

Where the Court of Holo-Dossou is she went to get these other things? The “fundamental options of the National Conference of February 1990 and which are set by Articles 42, 44 and 54 of the Constitution.” Yet among these famous elements of “basic options of the National Conference of February 1990,” one finds that have never been discussed at the National Conference, which were introduced only later with the High Council of the Republic (UNHCR). Some of superimposed elements such as the question of the age requirement of 40 years and 70 years were the subject of controversy to the point that the UNHCR had to introduce a third question between “yes” and “no” “yes but” the constitutional referendum. How the issue of presidential system, the age for presidential candidate, the presidential term, such questions are they not subject to revision by the people? France, which adopted a parliamentary system in 1958 did she not changed by referendum in semi-presidential system in 1962? And recently has it not changed by constitutional amendment the term of 7 years to 5 years?

Source

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s