Tunisians: Dissolution of the Judicial Council “a peg to cover failure”

Tunisia - Controversy escalated in Tunisia, with President Kais Saied issuing a decree dissolving the Supreme Judicial Council and creating a temporary council in its place.

And on Saturday, the Tunisian presidency announced that Saeed had signed a decree to create the Interim Supreme Judicial Council, after he announced a few days ago that the current council “has become a thing of the past.”

The details of the decree issued by Saeed revealed that it includes a text prohibiting judges’ strike, and another that gives the president “the right to request the exemption of every judge who violates his professional duties based on a justified report from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice.”

These developments came at a time when the country is witnessing two political and economic crises, after about 7 months of Saeed’s actions, which included freezing the powers of Parliament, announcing early elections on December 17, abolishing the constitutionality control body of laws, issuing legislation by presidential decrees, his presidency of the Public Prosecution and the dismissal of a president The government and the formation of a new one he appointed its head.

The Supreme Judicial Council is an independent constitutional body whose tasks include ensuring the independence of the judiciary, holding judges accountable, and granting them professional promotions.

The Tunisian president reiterates on every occasion that “the work of the judiciary is a function of the core of the Tunisian state, and it is not part of the legislative role” (that is, he does not enact laws, but rather implements them).

On February 7, Saeed said that the dissolution of the Judicial Council aims to "purify the country (of corruption)," considering that "purification can only take place in the presence of a just judiciary, everyone is equal before it, not as is happening today where there is no punishment for criminals and some are inevitable with individuals who infiltrated inside authority and within the judiciary.”

The Judicial Council (dissolved by Saeed) rejects the decision, and asserts that in its current composition (before announcing its dissolution) it is “the only legitimate constitutional institution representing the judiciary” in the country.

He is supported in this position by many non-governmental human rights organizations, including the “Tunisian Association of Young Judges” and the “Association of Tunisian Judges.”

The method is "arbitrary"

Journalist and political analyst Nizar Makni considered, “At one point, this measure was necessary, but the method of direct solution by President Saeed is arbitrary from one authority to another.”

He added, "In the end, it seems that the main motive for Saeed's insistence on his decision is to complete the final break with the pre-July 25 system, because it directed the judiciary to serve political purposes and not to serve the people."

Makni believes that “reform can take place in a way other than a direct solution,” suggesting that “the initiative comes from the judges themselves to conduct an internal dialogue that includes those involved in this sector, including judges, lawyers, and non-implementation, to amend the laws in force, and to move away from suspicions of favoritism and serve political parties.” at the expense of others.”

He pointed out that "the method of reform should not be in this way (the council's direct solution)."

And he continued, "Adopting this method may put the president in the image of a researcher who seeks to gather the authorities with one hand, if he or those around him are for their own goals and they are the ones who constitute a cause for fear, but this will not happen and freedom of speech and the media exist until Tunisia recovers and overcomes its current crisis."

"Peg to Cover Failure"

For his part, journalist and political analyst Saleh Attia said, "President Qais Saeed dissolved parliament and the government seven months ago and seized the executive authority in both parts, as well as placing his hand on the legislative authority, so that the judiciary remains the last obstacle to controlling and appropriating power."

And he considered that "the president wants to suspend his failure for months since July 2021 on the peg of the judiciary, which demanded its purification in the name of the will of the people, who never came out to demand the dissolution of the Supreme Judicial Council."

Attia explained that “the Supreme Judicial Council does not manage trials and does not handle cases, and it is essentially arranging, organizational, and oversight. Here the matter is clear and evident; The president wants to liquidate his opponents by fulfilling the instructions and to return to the stage of tyranny that directs orders according to his personal motives and desires.”

He said, "Saeed realized that his political, social and economic project had failed, so he looked to take over the judiciary to conduct trials of scale that would guarantee the support of the Tunisian people, which the judges and the opposition must confront vigorously," he said.

Attia expected that this step would lead to Tunisia remaining for at least two decades under the command of fulfilling the instructions and loyalties of the president, who is seeking to stay for a longer period in rule and control over the upcoming parliamentary elections, so that we will pass to a tyrannical stage fiercer and more dangerous than its predecessors in the country, with external support from countries such as the UAE and Egypt. and France” (without elaborating).

Rejection of the Penal Conciliation Law is the reason

In the same context, political analyst Boulababa Salem considers that “the real reason for President Saeed’s decision to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council is this council’s rejection of the Penal Conciliation Law proposed by Saeed.”

And the “Penal Conciliation” is a legal decree that Saeed proposed to the Judicial Council in late 2020, to establish a penal conciliation with “those who have been involved in corruption cases and looting the country’s wealth and capabilities and the public domain over the past years.”

Salem pointed out that “the council said when the decree of the law was presented that it needed specialized courts and did not accept it in the form in which it was presented, which prompted the president to launch successive attacks on the council before issuing a decision to dissolve it, in the first aspect of Saeed’s motives to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council.”

He added that "the second aspect of the motive of the president's decision comes as a result of the council's refusal to accept the decree of the Penal Conciliation Law, in a clear desire by the president to control the judicial authority after taking full control of the executive and legislative authorities."

Salem expected that the new composition of the council would be “in line with the president and two conferences under his orders, in contrast to the elected (dissolved) composition of 45 members between judges and lawyers months before the date of the council elections.”

On more than one occasion, Saeed, who began a 5-year presidential term in 2019, said that his exceptional measures are “measures within the framework of the constitution to protect the state from an imminent danger,” and stressed that rights and freedoms should not be violated.(Anatolia)

Nigeria's Israel Adesanya retains league title

Nigerian Israel Adesanya retained his middleweight belt on Sunday at UFC 271 in Houston, USA after defeating New Zealander Robert Whitaker by unanimous decision.

Adesanya, as plastic and feline in the exchange as ever, kept Whitaker at bay. The New Zealander showed great fighting game but couldn't add enough dividends in the eyes of the judges.

The Nigerian was selective in his punches, holding off the former champion, who failed to enter the strike zone. It didn't take long for the challenger to issue a warning to Whitaker. A powerful direct left from Adesanya sent the New Zealander to the mat.

Octagon

The last master of the style was more at ease and, conversely, Whitaker was becoming desperate. Knowing the champion's virtues in the exchange of blows, he tried to close the distance by looking to knock the champion down and take points by dominating on the canvas.

Israel Adesanya kept pushing and picked up the pace. Based on feints and guard changes, he grew and smothered the challenger with his wingspan. The New Zealander tried to level the fight by trying to land some volleys and pressing into the barrier.

Robert Whitaker is pulling out his full arsenal and looking for the back of the Nigerian, who doesn't seem to need to step up a gear. The Middlemore fighter is well aware that Adesanya has two bombs disguised as gloves after being knocked out in his first fight.

Despite the distance disadvantage, Whitaker played his cards right by basing his strategy on grappling. Having only the left as an effective punch, the one-on-one was not a good option for the challenger, who went from strength to strength adapting his strategy. The fight was decided on the scorecards, where the judges saw Adesanya as the winner by unanimous decision ( 48-47, 48-47 and 49-46 ). Since taking the belt from Whitaker himself in 2019, he has now made 4 successful defenses in a row as a middleweight monarch.

Is an appeal trial possible in the Dominc Ongwen case?

Dominic Ongwen, a senior commander of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, looks on at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

Dominic Ongwen, will he see his sentence reduced or canceled, this is in any case the subject of the appeal lodged by defense lawyers with the International Criminal Court. ICC judges are due in a hearing to hear the arguments of the ex-chief of the Lord's Resistance Army sentenced to 25 years in prison in May 2021 for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

He was notably found guilty of rape, sexual slavery and enlistment of child soldiers. He was also convicted of forced pregnancy, a first for the ICC, created in 2002 to judge the worst atrocities committed in the world.

The judges will decide whether an appeal trial should take place. For the defense, there were legal, factual and procedural errors. Dominic Ongwen faced life imprisonment. But the ICC ruled, after a long and complex trial, that the extreme suffering endured by the child soldier at the time of his abduction by the LRA should lead to a lenient sentence. Dominc Ongwen has always denied the charges brought against him, claiming to be the first victim of child abduction.