Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Constitutional Court to Rule Against President's Decree

Ukraine's Constitutional Court to rule Presidents 26 April decree unconstitutional


On Tuesday, Judge of the Constitutional Court Stephan Garish noted that the court will recognize unconstitutional the April 26 presidential decree on the dissolution of the Supreme Rada. “Proceeding from the tone of discussion and issues discussed by judges of the Constitutional Court, it seems to me that this decision is ripe for a long time ago. Under these conditions the outlook is clear. I think that this court will not recognize the presidential decree as lawful,” believed Garish, who has been recently appointed as a judge of the Constitutional Court by presidential decree, but has not assumed his office yet."

The ruling by the constitutional court has been widely expected as the President has limited authority under Article 90 of Ukraine's constitution to dismiss Ukraine's Parliament.

Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine's President, has gone to extraordinary efforts to try and prevent judicial review of his decree dismissing Ukraine's democratically elected parliament.

It is now expected that the President will agree to an Autumn election as proposed by Ukraine's Governing Coalition. The president will have legal authority to dismiss Ukraine's Parliament in October following the mass resignation of members of the opposition. The president will only have the authority to dismiss the parliament under Article 90 section 3 of Ukraine's Constitution.

Victor Yushchenko will be under pressure to resign so as to allow for joint parliamentary and Presidential elections to be held in October or November this year.

Yushchenko has usurped power and authority of the state where he had no authority.

In doing so he has brought Ukraine into disrepute and had undermined Ukraine's constitutional order and rule of law. All of which is in direct breach of his solemn oath.

He has no other alternative but to offer his resignation and if he so decides seek reelection and renewal of his mandate.

Whether for the president or against the president does not matter, once the court rules, the fact is that the president has acted against the interests of the state.

There could not be a more serious charge that warrants the president's impeachment.

Rather then face a long and drawn out impeachment trial the president should resign in order to restore pubic confidence in the office of the president

1 Comment:

Biby Cletus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.