Note Me Lawson Exclusion ANC #Togo 2010 FR-UK

8/6/2019 Note Me Lawson Exclusion ANC #Togo 2010 FR-UK

1/27

Note crite de son sige jectable ad nutum parMatre LAWSON-LANCELOT Latvi Calvin Georges

Dput ANCPrsident de la Commission des Relations

Extrieures et de la CooprationAvocat

Ancien Procureur GnralPrs la Cour dAppel

Et la Cour Suprme du Togo


2/27

N O T E

La Cour Constitutionnelle de la Rpublique Togolaise a rendu le 22 Novembre 2010,une dcision juridiquement curieuse plus dun titre.

Il est tabli que le 30 Aot 2007, la crmonie dinvestiture de leur parti, lescandidats de lUnion des Forces de Changement (UFC), inscrits sur les listes lectorales, ontsign trois documents :

- Un premier dnomm

Contrat de confiance de lUFC Pacte dAdhsion aux valeurs de lUFC

Ce document prcise les conditions gnrales de candidature.

- Un second document dnomm Contrat de confiancePacte dAdhsion aux valeurs de lUFCEngagement du Candidat .

- Le troisime document est un modle de lettre de dmission dactylographie sansindication de nom, ni de date, rdige ladresse du Prsident de lAssemble Nationale etportant la mention : Dput lAssemble Nationale .

Ces documents signs ont t ramasss par le Prsident National Monsieur GilchristOLYMPIO, puis le Bureau National a procd linvestiture officielle des candidats.

Vingt sept (27) de ces candidats ont t lus au mois doctobre 2007 lAssemble

Nationale de la Rpublique Togolaise.

Au mois doctobre 2010, une crise politique interne lUnion des Forces deChangement (UFC) a entrain une scission.

Les responsables et des militants ont prsent leur dmission lUnion des Forces deChangement (UFC) et cr leur propre parti, lALLIANCE NATIONALE POUR LECHANGEMENT (ANC) auquel vingt (20) des vingt sept (27) dputs ont adhr.

Le nouveau Bureau de lUnion des Forces de Changement (UFC) a transmis des lettresde dmission au Prsident de lAssemble Nationale qui, malgr les protestations et


3/27

contestations des vingt (20) dputs dsormais ANC qui se sentaient viss, a saisi la CourConstitutionnelle de ces dmissions.

La Cour Constitutionnelle par Dcision NE-018/10 du 22 Novembre 2010, constate la

vacance des siges des dputs dont elle a reu les lettres de dmission et autoriseloccupation des siges dclars vacants par les supplants dont elle donne la liste.

La dcision ci-avant rappele, est critiquable tous les points de vue.

I- Procdure suivie lAssemble Nationale

Les dispositions de larticle 6 du Rglement Intrieur de lAssemble Nationale,consacres la dmission du dput, stipule :

Tout dput rgulirement lu peut se dmettre de ses fonctions.Les dmissions sont adresses au Prsident de lAssemble qui en donne

connaissance lAssemble Nationale dans la plus prochaine sance et les notifie la CourConstitutionnelle

La dmission est, en droit constitutionnel, un acte par lequel une personne renonce une fonction.

Elle est un acte unilatral qui, pour devenir effective et engager son auteur, doit porterlindication du nom de celui-ci, la date de prise deffet de la dmission et la signature delauteur.

Il est constant que les dmissions dont il sagit, nont pas t adresses au Prsidentde lAssemble Nationale par les dputs signataires des lettres de dmission. Cetteconstatation renforce lobligation faite au Prsident de lAssemble Nationale de porter lesdmissions la connaissance de lAssemble Nationale qui doit connatre lexistence de cesdmissions.

Il est galement constant que, pour tre valablement port la connaissance delAssemble Nationale, le Prsident devra donner lAssemble Nationale runie en plnireles noms des dputs dmissionnaires, le contenu des lettres de dmission et enfin la date deprise deffet des dmissions.

A la plnire du 18 Novembre 2010, le Prsident a annonc neuf (9) dmissions, refusde donner les noms, mais a prcis que les lettres de dmission signes ne portaient pas dedate.


4/27

Il est constant enfin que larticle 6 du Rglement Intrieur de lAssemble Nationale fait

obligation au Prsident de lAssemble Nationale de notifier le corps des lettres de dmission la Cour Constitutionnelle.

En effet la notification prvue larticle 6 du Rglement Intrieur de lAssembleNationale est la formalit par laquelle les dmissions sont portes la connaissance de laCour Constitutionnelle.

Elle permet, en droit constitutionnel, la Cour, de prendre connaissance des noms desdputs qui dmissionnent, de lexpression crite de leur dcision, de la date de prise deffetde la dmission et enfin de relever quil sagit dun acte sign.

Il ressort de tout ce qui prcde que lobligation dinformer lAssemble Nationale,prvue larticle 6 du Rglement Intrieur de lAssemble Nationale na pas t respecte parle Prsident de lAssemble Nationale et cest en vain quil voque tant dans le Procs-verbalde la plnire du 18 Novembre 2010 adress la Cour Constitutionnelle que dans lecommuniqu du Bureau de lAssemble Nationale du 19 Novembre, lincident survenu laplnire de la veille pour sexonrer de cette obligation.

A ce qui prcde il faut ajouter les lettres de protestation adresses aprs la plniredu 18 Novembre 2010, le jour mme, par les dputs qui se sentaient abusivement viss parlannonce en plnire de lexistence de neuf (9) dmissions, parmi lesquels les dputs dontles noms se retrouvent dans la dcision NE-018/10 rendue le 22 Novembre 2010 par la Cour

Constitutionnelle.

Dailleurs lexamen chronologique des dates des correspondances vises par ladcision NE-018/10 du 22 Novembre 2010 est assez difiant.

En effet, il y a dabord la lettre du 11 Novembre 2010 du Prsident de lAssembleNationale transmettant des dmissions la Cour Constitutionnelle en violation desdispositions de larticle 6 du Rglement Intrieur qui imposait au Prsident, avant toutetransmission des dmissions la Cour Constitutionnelle, den informer lAssemble Nationale.

Il y a ensuite la lettre N163/2010/CC/P du 17 Novembre 2010, adresse par lePrsident de la Cour Constitutionnelle au Prsident de lAssemble Nationale.

Il y a la plnire du 18 novembre 2010 au cours de laquelle linformation des dputsrunis en plnire avait une forte allure dune rgularisation du reste manque ainsi quentmoigne le Procs-verbal de la plnire du 18 Novembre adress par le Prsident delAssemble Nationale la Cour Constitutionnelle.

Les manquements juridiques relevs dans la procdure mise en uvre par le Prsidentde lAssemble Nationale, violent les dispositions de lArticle 6 du Rglement Intrieur de


5/27

lAssemble Nationale. Ils sont constants dans les actes transmis par le Prsident delAssemble Nationale. Une simple lecture des actes de dmission et du Procs-verbal de laplnire du 18 Novembre 2010 permettait la Cour Constitutionnelle de relever les vices quientachent gravement la procdure de dmission conduite par le Prsident de lAssemble

Nationale.

II- Procdure devant la Cour Constitutionnelle

1)- La procdure devant la Cour constitutionnelle est fixe par les articles 31, 32 et 33du Rglement Intrieur de la Cour.

Larticle 33 dispose notamment que : Ds la rception dune requte, le Prsidentdsigne par ordonnance un rapporteur parmi les juges de la Cour

Le rapporteur instruit laffaire et soumet un rapport crit la Cour dans le dlai fix parladite ordonnance.

Le rapport et le projet de dcision sont tablis au moins en dix (10) exemplaires etprsents au Prsident de la Cour. Aprs le dpt du rapport, la Cour se runit en assembleet dlibre huis-clos.

Nul ne peut demander tre entendu lors des dbats de la Cour .

Larticle 33 du Rglement Intrieur de la Cour constitutionnelle nopre aucunedistinction entre les requtes. Cette disposition claire soumet toutes les requtes la mmergle. Toute requte, quelle quelle soit, doit donner lieu la dsignation dun juge rapporteur.Le premier acte du Prsident de la Cour, ds la rception de la requte, est la dsignation parordonnance dun juge rapporteur.

La Dcision de la Cour, lorsquun juge rapporteur a t dsign, fait tat dans les visasdurapport prsent la Cour aprs analyse des lments du dossier.(cf : Dcision NE-004/05 du 2 Mai 2005, Dcision NC-003/09 du 9 Juillet 2009.)

La simple lecture des visas de la Dcision NE-018/10 du 22 Novembre 2010, permetde constater quaucun rapporteur na t dsign par ordonnance du Prsident et aucunrapport na t prsent la Cour aprs analyse du dossier.

Il sensuit que la Cour na pas respect les prescriptions de larticle 33 de sonRglement Intrieur.

Le constat ci-avant, prsente une importance juridique incontestable pour quatre

raisons :


6/27

En effet, les dputs, qui pouvaient se sentir viss par lannonce en plnire de

lexistence de dmission sans indication de noms, ont crit chacun une lettre de protestationau Prsident de lAssemble Nationale. Copies de ces lettres ont t transmises pourinformation et toutes fins de droit la Cour Constitutionnelle.

Le procs verbal de la plnire du 18 Novembre 2010, adress la Cour par lePrsident de lAssemble Nationale aprs la sance, fait lui aussi tat dun incident caus parlindication du nom dun dput qui a protest vhmentement clamant navoir jamais transmisde lettre de dmission ni fait transmettre ladite lettre au Prsident de lAssemble Nationale.

Il y a ensuite le contenu mme de ce procs verbal qui reconnat expressment la nonobservation des prescriptions de larticle 6 du Rglement Intrieur de lAssemble Nationale,puisquil y est prcis que la sance a t leve suite lincident.

Il y a enfin labsence de date sur les lettres de dmission.

Un juge rapporteur rgulirement dsign, en application de larticle 33 du RglementIntrieur de la Cour, aurait certainement relev ces vices et manquements et son rapportaurait clair la religion de la Cour.

La violation des dispositions de larticle 33 du Rglement Intrieur de la Cour a nui laqualit juridique de la Dcision NE-018/10 du 22 Novembre 2010

2)- La saisine en droit est la formalit par laquelle un justiciable soumet une juridiction, le rglement dun conflit ou la constatation dune situation gnratrice deffetsjuridiques. Il sagit dune faon gnrale dune demande, peu importe la forme de celle-ci.

La Cour Constitutionnelle,qui reconnat avoir reu les lettres des 11 et 18Novembre 2010, elle adresses par le Prsident de lAssemble Nationale,fixe dans laDcision NE-018/10 du 22 Novembre 2010 la date de sa saisine au 18 Novembre 2010.

Un simple rapprochement de ces lettres des 11 et 18 Novembre 2010, tablit que la

premire demande est celle contenue dans la lettre du 11 Novembre 2010.

En effet, le Prsident de lAssemble Nationale, qui dclarait dans cette premire lettretransmettre les dmissions reues, formulait de la faon suivante sa demande qui,juridiquement, saisit la Cour :

A cet effet je vous transmets les documents affrents pour comptence afin destatuer sur le cas

La saisine de la Cour Constitutionnelle nest pas juridiquement discutable.


7/27

La mme demande, rpte dans la lettre du 18 Novembre 2010 dans les mmes

termes dailleurs, ne pouvait plus valablement saisir nouveau, la Cour:

je vous transmets les documents pour comptence afin de statuer sur les

cas .

Pourquoi la Cour a-t-elle prfr viser, en violation de larticle 31 de son RglementIntrieur, la demande rpte dans la lettre du 18 Novembre 2010, alors que sans contestecelle-ci est superftatoire, donc irrecevable.

Simplement parce que la demande contenue dans la lettre du 11 Novembre, viole largle de larticle 6 du Rglement Intrieur de lAssemble Nationale qui prvoit avant toutesaisine de la Cour Constitutionnelle, linformation pralable de lAssemble Nationale.

Il a manqu tous ces juristes de circonstance qui ont assist le Prsident delAssemble Nationale, lintelligence de conseiller celui-ci le retrait de sa premire demandeavant tout dbat au fond et de prsenter une nouvelle demande contenant le respect, du resteapproximatif en tout cas incomplet et juridiquement contestable, de la rgularisation contenuedans la lettre du 18 Novembre 2010, qui, de ce fait, deviendrait la seule et unique demande.

Les juristes de circonstance ne savent peut-tre pas que la saisine dune juridictionnest ni irrmdiable ni dfinitive.

Ainsi va le droit judiciaire. La faute est dfinitivement commise par cette Cour qui visesans frmir, dans sa Dcision NE-018/10 du 22 novembre 2010, deux demandesrgulirement reues et enregistres : la premire saisine recevable mais mal fonde surlaquelle elle se tait, la seconde irrecevable parce que, une juridiction ne peut tre saisie deuxfois par le mme requrant de la mme demande dont le bien fond est du restecontestable,et sur laquelle elle se prononce.

Je me garde de porter un jugement de valeur. La faute juridique commise par laDcision de la Cour est suffisamment loquente.

3)- Sagissant de lacte de dmission :il faut rappeler quune dmission juridiquementvalable, lorsque la Loi exige quelle soit crite, doit indiquer les nom et prnoms de lapersonne qui dmissionne, lexpression claire de la dcision de dmissionner avec indicationde la fonction dont on dmissionne. Elle doit tre signe par la personne qui dmissionne etindiquer la date de prise deffet de la dmission. La date doit, en application dun vieuxprincipe de droit, tre dtermine ou alors dterminable.

Cest ainsi quon peut valablement dmissionner par exemple compter de la date de

rception de la lettre de dmission alors que lacte lui-mme ne porte aucune date.


8/27

Le droit constitutionnel, celui l mme qui doit fonder les dcisions de la Cour

Constitutionnelle, affirme quune dmission crite sans indication de date constitue unedmission en blanc. Elle se prsente sous la forme dune lettre signe mais non dateremise en guise de garantie dun engagement. Le droit constitutionnel dclare cette pratique

contraire au principe de linterdiction de mandat impratif contenu justement dans larticle 52de la Constitution togolaise.

Cest en vain que la Cour voquera la procdure de notification de larticle 6 duRglement Intrieur de lAssemble Nationale.

Le problme juridique qui se pose est trs simple.

La Cour Constitutionnelle peut-elle valablement recevoir notification dun acte que ledroit constitutionnel dclare irrmdiablement contraire au principe de linterdiction du mandatimpratif contenu dans larticle 52 de la Constitution ?

Larticle 104 de la Constitution de la Rpublique Togolaise, consacr la comptencede la Cour Constitutionnelle, affirme que :

La Cour Constitutionnelle est la juridiction charge de veiller au respect desdispositions de la constitution .

Il sagit l dune charge de tous les jours et de chaque instant.

La Cour Constitutionnelle, haute juridiction laquelle la Constitution donne unecomptence exclusive claire, ne peut recevoir un acte dclar contraire une disposition de laConstitution. Elle peut encore moins reconnatre, par une dcision juridictionnelle, des effetsjuridiques attachs un tel acte.

Certains ont indiqu dans une sorte de divagation juridique que la Dcision NE-018/10du 22 novembre 2010 pourrait trouver son fondement dans la rgle NemoAuditurPropriamTurpitudinamAllegans Nul ne peut allguer sa propre faute en

matire de contrats immoraux .

Il suffira dindiquer que le problme des dmissions se pose en droit constitutionneldevant la Cour Constitutionnelle et non devant les juridictions civiles devant lesquellesdailleurs, dans le cas despce, cette rgle ne peut recevoir application.

4)- La dernire violation releve dans la Dcision NE-018/10 du 22 novembre 2010concerne la rgle qui organise les dlibrations des juridictions.

Cette rgle prescrit de faon stricte que la composition qui dlibre doit tre la mmeque celle qui rend la dcision.


9/27

Cette rgle a t reprise par larticle 25 du Rglement Intrieur de la CourConstitutiionnelle qui exige la mention des noms de tous les juges ayant particip ladlibration et la signature de ceux-ci.

Article 25 : Les dcisions de la Cour comportent les visas, les motifs et le dispositif.

Elles contiennent les noms des juges qui ont sig et leur signature

Il ne fait aucun doute, et ceci est de notorit publique, que les neuf (9) juges de laCour Constitutionnelle ont dlibr ensemble. Mme les journaux ont fait tat de cette ralit.

La dcision rendue publique par la Cour Constitutionnelle fait tatde huit (8) jugesseulement qui auraient dlibr.

Quelle valeur juridique faut-il donner la dcision publie par la CourConstitutionnelle ?

III- Problmatique de la dviance des CoursConstitutionnelles

Finalement, la Dcision NE-018/10 du 22 Novembre 2010 qui semble recevoirapplication malgr tous les manquements et vices relevs, pose en ralit un problmefondamental.

Nous savons que : lorsque le prtre officiant dclare, quelles que soientt la qualit et lavaleur du pain et du vin : que ceci est mon corps et ceci est mon sang , le mystre deleucharistie saccomplit immdiatement et irrmdiablement pour le chrtien ; mais alors l,nous sommes dans le domaine de la Foi, dans les relations du chrtien Dieu.

La vrit juridique exprime par la Dcision de la Cour Constitutionnelle ne sauraitbnficier du mme pouvoir, car alors, nous sommes dans le domaine de la Raison, cettefacult qui permet au citoyen de connatre et dapprcier un fait, un acte et un raisonnement

juridiques, de les juger conformes aux principes et rgles de droit.

Les Dcisions de la Cour Constitutionnelle ne peuvent simposer ergaomnes que sielles respectent les dispositions de la Loi fondamentale, les principes gnraux du droit, lesrgles juridiques en vigueur et bien entendu les conventions et protocoles internationauxratifis par la Rpublique Togolaise ; lordonnancement juridique qui constitue dans notrepays, la Raison Ecrite .

Voil donc, Juridiquement et totalement dsarticule, la Dcision NE-018/10 du 22

novembre 2010 de la Cour Constitutionnelle qui se propose dexclure, de lAssembleNationale, neuf, pas moins, lus de la Nation.


10/27

Contre de telles dcisions, Mirabeau dclarait : La Justice est un besoin de tous et dechaque instant, comme elle doit imposer le respect, elle doit inspirer la confiance .

Il est impressionnant de constater la place et le rle fondamental que les constitutionsrservent gnralement la Cour Constitutionnelle.

La Constitution de la Rpublique Togolaise attribue une comptence vritablementimmense la Cour Constitutionnelle :

Elle vrifie la constitutionnalit des lois qui rglementent la vie des citoyens, elleprotge les membres de la socit nationale en garantissant le respect des droitsfondamentaux de la personne humaine. Elle veille au respect des liberts publiques. Elleintervient pour un fonctionnement harmonieux des institutions de la Rpublique et pourlexercice rgulier de lactivit des pouvoirs publics. Elle statue enfin sur la rgularit desconsultations lectorales essentielles en protgeant le droit des citoyens lecteurs se choisirlibrement leurs dirigeants.

Il sen suit que la Cour Constitutionnelle est la plus haute et la plus importantejuridiction de lEtat.

Elle devrait avec un tel pouvoir de contrle et dintervention, constituer le socle dunevie nationale apaise, le ciment de la dmocratie, lultime rempart contre tous les abus des

pouvoirs publics.

En effet, le rle premier et fondamental de la Cour Constitutionnelle est dassurerleffectivit et le libre exercice de tous les droits garantis et protgs par la Constitution. LaCour Constitutionnelle a en ralit et finalement pour mission de promouvoir lEtat de droit.

Labsence de respect des procdures, limpertinence des raisonnements juridiques quiconduisent ses dcisions, linterprtation trs souvent errone des principes gnraux dudroit, des dispositions constitutionnelles et lgislatifs ainsi que la volont des juges

constitutionnels docculter des lments constants des dossiers soumis leur examenaboutissent finalement et en ralit un dni de justice totalement contraire sa mission,celle fondamentale de promouvoir lEtat de droit.

Le caractre volontairement partisan des dcisions des Cours Constitutionnelles,dnonces a et l, la perte de confiance des populations qui jugent souvent contraires audroit les dcisions que les hautes juridictions tentent de faire appliquer, les vices juridiquesnormes et les interprtations manifestement errones des Lois obligent en Afrique rflchirau bien fond de labsence de recours que les constitutions attachent aux dcisions des

hautes juridictions en matire constitutionnelle.


11/27

Une premire piste pourrait conduire reconnatre la ncessit dun mcanisme

juridique de correction.

Une vritable procdure de rvision pourrait permettre la Cour dexaminer les griefs

juridiques fort justifis en droit, levs trs souvent contre ses Dcisions.

Lexistence dune telle procdure vitera sans doute la grande lgret avec laquelleles dcisions des Cours Constitutionnelles sont conduites et motives.

Jai encore la certitude, peut-tre parce que jai t un des leur, que nulle mission nestplus saine ni plus difficile que celle du Juge. Ml aux passions de toutes sortes, sollicit parles faiblesses humaines, le juge doit sy montrer suprieur. Vou des travaux obscurs etdifficiles le juge doit trouver la rcompense de ses efforts non pas dans les bruits de larenomme mais dans les calmes satisfactions de la conscience.

Il doit garder lesprit quil constitue le dshonneur et le flau de nos socits si,oubliant la hauteur de sa mission, il lui arrive dabuser de limmense autorit que nos socitslui confient.

SEGUIER Antoine Mathieu, Magistrat, instruisant le dossier du Marchal Ney,poursuivi pour trahison, disait : la Cour rend des arrts et non pas des services .

Quelle belle, haute et juste ide de la mission du juge, Messieurs les membres de la

Cour Constitutionnelle !

Note crite de son sige jectable ad nutum parMatre LAWSON-LANCELOT Latvi Calvin Georges

Dput ANCPrsident de la Commission des Relations

Extrieures et de la CooprationAvocat

Ancien Procureur Gnral

Prs la Cour dAppelEt la Cour Suprme du Togo


12/27

1

A Memorandum written from his ejection seat ad nutum byBarrister LAWSON-LANCELOT Latevi Calvin George

ANC Member of National AssemblyChairman of the External Relations and Cooperation Committee

LawyerFormer Attorney General

At the Court of AppealAnd the Supreme Court of Togo


13/27

2

NOTE

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Togo rendered on 22

nd

November 2010 a decision which is legally strange in many respects.

It has been established that on 30th August 2007 during the swearing

in ceremony of their party, the candidates of the Union des Forces de

Changement (UFC) registered on the electoral list signed three

documents:

- A first document entitled:

Contract of Trust of UFC

Membership Pact to UFC Values

This document provides the general conditions of candidature.

- A second document entitled:

Contract of Trust

Membership Pact with UFC Values

Commitment of the Candidate.

-

The third document is a model of Resignation Letter typed withoutany name or date, addressed to the Speaker of the National

Assembly and bearing the reference of Member of the National

Assembly.


14/27


15/27

4

The above mentioned decision is questionable from every point of

view.

I Procedure applied at the National Assembly

The provisions of article 6 of the Bye-Laws of the National

Assembly related to the resignation of a Member of the National

Assembly stipulate:

That any Member of the National Assembly regularly elected may

resign from his functions.

The resignations shall be addressed to the Speaker of the

Assembly who shall inform the National Assembly during the next

nearest session and shall also inform the Constitutional Court

The resignation is, in constitutional law, a decision by which aperson relinquishes his mandate.

It is a unilateral decision which, to become effective and commit its

author, must bear his name, the date the resignation takes effect and

the signature of the author.

It is obvious that the resignations that we are talking about were

not addressed to the Speaker of the National Assembly by the Members

of the National Assembly who signed these resignation letters. This is

the more reason why the Speaker of the National Assembly is obliged to

inform all the Members of the National Assembly of the resignations.


16/27

5

It is equally obvious that, in order to officially inform the Members

of the National Assembly, the Speaker must give to the National

Assembly during a plenary session, the names of the resigning

Members of the National Assembly, the content of the letters of

resignation and finally the date on which the resignations take effect.

During the plenary session of 18th November 2010, the Speaker

announced nine (9) resignations; he refused to give the names but

mentioned that the signed letters of resignation did not carry any date.

It is finally obvious that article 6 of the Bye-Laws compels the

Speaker of the National Assembly to inform the Constitutional Court of

the body of the letters of resignation.

Indeed, the notification provided for in article 6 of the Bye-Laws ofthe National Assembly is the formality through which the Constitutional

Court is informed of the resignations.

It allows the Court, in conformity with the Constitutional Law, to be

informed of the names of the Members of the National Assembly who

are resigning, to take cognisance of the written content of their decision,

to know the date their decision is taking effect and finally to note that it is

a signed decision.

The conclusion of what has been said so far is that the obligation

to inform the National Assembly provided for in Article 6 of the Bye-Laws

was not complied with by the Speaker of the National Assembly and it is


17/27

6

in vain that he mentions both in the Minutes of the plenary session of

18th November 2010 addressed to the Constitutional Court and in the

communiqu of the Bureau of the National Assembly of 19th November

the incident that occurred during the previous plenary session to exempt

himself from the obligation to inform the National Assembly provided for

in article 6 mentioned above.

In addition to what has been said, one must add the protest letters

addressed after the plenary session of 18th November 2010 the very

day, by the Members of the National Assembly who felt abusively

concerned by the announcement in plenary of the existence of nine (9)

resignations, among whom the Members of the National Assembly

whose names are included in the decision NE-018/1 0 made on 22nd

November 2010 by the Constitutional court.

Besides, a chronological analysis of the dates of the letters

specified by the decision NE-018/10 of 22 nd November 2010 is quite

edifying.

Indeed, first of all, there is the letter dated 11 th November 2010,

from the Speaker of the National Assembly forwarding resignations to

the Constitutional Court in violation of the provisions of article 6 of Bye-

Laws which compels the Speaker to inform the National Assembly

before any resignation letter is forwarded to the Constitutional Court.


18/27

7

Then the letter dated 17th November 2010, addressed by the

President of the Constitutional Court to the Speaker of the National

Assembly.

There is the plenary session of 18th November 2010 during which,

the information about the Members of the National Assembly gathered in

plenary just looked like a rather disappointing regularisation, testified by

the Minutes of the plenary session of 18th November sent by the

Speaker of the National Assembly to the Constitutional Court.

The legal irregularities identified in the procedure used by the

Speaker of the National Assembly are in violation of the provisions of

article 6 of the Bye-Laws. They are obvious in the decisions forwarded

by the Speaker of the National Assembly. A simple reading of the

resignation decisions and of the Minutes of the plenary session of 18th

November 2010 would have helped the Constitutional Court to identify

these irregularities which seriously affect the resignation procedure

applied by the Speaker of the National Assembly.

II Procedure before the Constitutional Court

1) The procedure before the Constitutional Court is set byarticles 31, 32 and 33 of the Bye-Laws of the Court.

Article 33 provides notably that: Right after receiving a request,the President of the Court shall appoint by order a rapporteur among theJudges of the Court.


19/27

8

The rapporteur shall proceed to deal with the case and shallsubmit a written report to the Court within the deadline established by

the said order.

The report and the draft decision shall be prepared at least in ten(10) copies and presented to the President of the Court. After submittingthe report, the Court shall meet in assembly and shall deliberate behindclosed doors.

No one shall request to be heard during the debates of the Court.

Article 33 of the Bye-Laws of the Constitutional Court does not

make any difference in the requests. This clear provision subjects allrequests to the same rule. Any request no matter the purpose shall callfor the appointment of a Judge Rapporteur. The first decision of thePresident of the Court, right after the reception of the request is theappointment by order of a Judge Rapporteur.

The Decision of the Court, when a Judge Rapporteur is appointed,shall make reference to the report presented at the Court after analysisof the various elements of the case. (cf: Decision NoE-004 of 2nd May

2005, Decision NoC-003/09 of 9th

July 2009.)

The simple reading of the references of the Decision NE-018/10of 22nd November 2010, indicated that that no Rapporteur has beenappointed by order of the President of the Court and no report waspresented to the Court after analysis of the case.

This is the sign that the Court did not comply with the provisions ofarticle 33 of its Bye-Laws.

The above observation presents an unquestionable legalimportance for four reasons:

Indeed, the Members of the National Assembly who felt concernedby the announcement in plenary session of the existence of resignationwithout mentioning of the names have each written a protest letter to theSpeaker of the National Assembly. Copies of these letters wereforwarded for information and for all intents and purposes to theConstitutional Court.


20/27

9

The minutes of the plenary of 18th November 2010, addressed to

the Court by the President of the National Assembly after the session,also mentioned an incident created by the mentioning of the name of aMember of National Assembly who vehemently objected having everforwarded a letter of resignation or asked for the forwarding of the saidletter to the Speaker of the National Assembly.

There is also the very content of these minutes which clearlyrecognise the non compliance with the provisions of article 6 of the Bye-Laws of the National Assembly since the minutes state that the sessionwas adjourned after the incident.

There is lastly the absence of the date on the letters of resignation.

A Reporting Judge who is regularly appointed, in compliance witharticle 33 of the Bye-Laws of the Court, would certainly identify theseirregularities and his report would have clarified the decision of theCourt.

The violation of the provisions of article 33 affects the legal quality

of the Decision NoE-018/10 of 22nd

November 2010.

2) The submission of a case to the court is the formality wherebya justifiable refers to a jurisdiction to settle a dispute or to notifya situation that creates legal effects. Generally speaking, it is arequest, no matter it form.

The Constitutional Court which recognizes having receivedthe letters dated 11th and 18th November 2010, addressed to itby the Speaker of the National Assembly sets in the Decisionof No.E-018/10 of 22nd November 2010 the date of its referralto 18th November 2010.

A simple reconciliation of these letters of 11th and 18thNovember 2010 shows that the first request is the one containedin the letter dated 11th November 2010.

Indeed, the Speaker of the National Assembly who declaredin this first letter that he had forwarded the resignations received,


21/27

10

formulated in the following way his request which legally informsthe Court:

To this effect I forward to you the related documentsfor competence in order to rule on the case

The referral to the Constitutional Court is not legallyquestionable.

The same request repeated in the letter of 18th November2010 in the same terms besides could no longer inform the Courtonce again:

I forward to you the documents for competence inorder to rule on the case.

Why did the Court prefer to refer, in violation of article 31 ofits Bye-Laws, the repeated request in the letter of 18th November2010, whereas unquestionably the latter is superfluous, thereforeirregular.

Simply because the request contained in the letter of 11th

November violates the rule of article 6 of the Bye-Laws of theNational Assembly which stipulates that before any referral to theConstitutional court, the National Assembly must first be informed.

All these legal experts of the moment who assisted theSpeaker of the National Assembly lacked the necessaryintelligence to advice the Speaker to withdraw his first requestbefore any debate on the substance and to present a new requestwhich contains at least the approximate and in any case, theincomplete and legally questionable compliance with theregularisation contained in the letter dated 10th November 2010,which shall therefore become the sole request.

Maybe, the legal experts of the moment do not know that thereferral to a jurisdiction is neither irretrievable nor final.

Such is the judicial law. The mistake is definitely committedby this Court which refers without hesitation in its Decision NE-


22/27

11

018/10 of 22nd November 2010 to two requests regularly receivedand registered: the first referral receivable but not justifiable on

which the Court is silent, the second which is irregular because, ajurisdiction cannot be referred to twice by the same claimant of thesame request which genuineness is all the same questionable,and on which it has taken a decision.

I do not want to make a value judgment. The legal mistakemade by Decision of the Court is sufficiently eloquent.

3) With regard to the resignation decision: let us recall that alegally valid resignation, when the law requires that it must be

written must include the full names of the person who isresigning, the clear expression of the decision to resign with themention of the function from which one is resigning. It must besigned by the person who is resigning and indicate the date theresignation shall take effect. The date shall in compliance withan old law principle be determined or determinable.

This is how a person can legitimately resign for example witheffect from the date of the reception of the resignation letter whiles

the decision itself does not bear any date.

The Constitutional Law, the very one which must serve asthe basis for the decisions of the Constitutional Court declares thata resignation without any indication of the date constitutes a blankresignation. It is presented in the form of a letter signed whichdoes not indicate any date and which is handed over as aguarantee of a commitment. The Constitutional Law declares thispractice contrary to the principle of prohibition of an imperativemandate rightly stipulated in article 52 of the Constitution of theRepublic of Togo.

It is in vain that the Court will mention the procedure ofnotification of article 6 of the Bye-Laws of the National Assembly.

The legal problem which is raised is very simple.

Can the Constitutional Court legitimately receive anotification of a decision which the Constitutional Law declares


23/27

12

irremediably contrary to the principle of prohibition of theimperative mandate in article 52 of the Constitution?

Article 104 of the Constitution of the Republic of Togodevoted to the competence of the Constitutional Court declares:

The Constitutional Court is the jurisdiction responsible forensuring compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.

This is an issue of daily responsibility.

The Constitutional Court, high jurisdiction to which the

Constitution give an exclusive and clear competence shall notreceive a decision declared contrary to a provision of theConstitution. It may all the same recognise, through a judicialdecision, legal effects attached to such a decision.

Some people declared in legal ramblings that the DecisionNE-018/10 of 22 nd November 2010 may be justified by the ruleNemo Auditeur Propriam Turpitudinam Allegans No one canallege his own mistake in terms of immoral contracts.

It is just a matter of indicating that the problem ofresignations are raised in terms of constitutional law before theConstitutional Court and not before the Civil Jurisdictions beforewhich, in this case, this rule cannot by applied.

4) The last violation identified in the Decision NE-018/10 of22nd November 2010 concerns the rule which organises thedeliberations of the jurisdictions.

This rule provides in a strict manner that the compositionof the judges who deliberates must be the same who renders thedecision.

This rule was repeated in article 25 of the Bye-Laws whichrequires the mentioning of the names of all the Judges whoparticipated in the deliberation and signing of the decision.


24/27

13

Article 25: The decisions of the Court include thereferences, the motives and the setting.

They include the names of the Judges who signed andtheir signature.

There is no doubt, and this is known to the public that thenine (9) Judges of the Constitutional court deliberated together.Even the media made mention of this fact.

The decision made public by the Constitutional Courtmakes mentioned only eight (8) Judges who have deliberated.

What legal value must one give to the decision publishedby the Constitutional Court?

III Problem of deviation of the Constitutional Courts

Finally the Decision NE-018/10 of 22 nd November 2010which seems to be enforced despite all the irregularities andlapsed identified, poses in reality a fundamental problem.

We do know that: when the officiating priest declares, nomatter the quality and value of the bread and wine, that this is mybody and this is my blood, the mystery of the Sacrament isaccomplished immediately and irremediably for the Christian; butthen, we are in the area of faith, in the relationship between theChristian and God.

The legal truth expressed by the Decision of theConstitutional Court would only benefit from the same power, for,we are in the area of Reason, this faculty which enables the citizento know and appreciate a fact, a decision and a legal reasoning, to

judge them in accordance with the legal principles and regulations.

The Decisions of the Constitutional Court cannot only beimposed erga omnes if they comply with the provisions of thefundamental law, the general principles of the law, the legal rulesin force and of course the international conventions and protocols


25/27

14

ratified by the Republic of Togo; the legal order which constitutesin our country the Written Reason.

This is therefore how we legally and totally disarticulateand break down the Decision NE-018/10 of 22 nd November 2010of the Constitutional Court which proposes to exclude from theNational Assembly, nine, not less, elected officers of the Nation.

Against such decisions, Mirabeau stated that Justice is aneed of all and on every occasion, as it has to impose respect, itmust inspire trust.

It is impressive to note the fundamental place and role thatconstitutions generally ask the Constitutional Courts to play in thesociety.

The Constitution of the Republic of Togo attributes asignificant responsibility to the Constitutional Court.

It shall check the constitutionality of the laws whichregulate the life of the citizens; it shall protect the members of the

national society by guaranteeing the respect of the fundamentalrights of the human being. It shall see to the respect of publicliberties. It shall intervene for a harmonious functioning of theinstitutions of the Republic and for the regular execution of theactivity of public authorities. It shall finally rule on the regularity ofelections by protecting the right of the voters to freely chose theirleaders.

The Constitutional Court is therefore the highest and mostimportant jurisdiction of the State.

With such a power of control and intervention, it mustconstitute the basis of a peaceful national life, the cement ofdemocracy, the last shield against all the abuses of publicauthorities.

Indeed the first and fundamental role of the ConstitutionalCourt is therefore to ensure the effectiveness and the freeexercise of all the rights guaranteed and protected by the


26/27

15

Constitution. It has in reality and finally the mission of promotingthe rule of law.

The non compliance with the procedures, the lack ofrelevance of the legal reasoning which led to its decisions, theinterpretation very often erroneous of the general principles of law,the constitutional and legislative provisions, the will of theConstitutional Judges to ignore some obvious elements of thecases submitted to their examination finally and in reality lead to adenial of justice totally contrary to its mission, that of promoting therule of law.

The voluntarily partisan nature of the decisions of theConstitutional Court denounced here and there, the loss of trustfrom the people who often think that the decisions that the high

jurisdictions are trying to apply are contrary to the law, the seriouslegal irregularities and the obviously wrong interpretations of thelaws compel people in Africa to think about the genuineness of thelack of recourse that the constitutions attach to the decisions of thehigh jurisdictions in constitutional terms.

A first possibility may be the recognition of the need to setup a legal mechanism of correction.

A real review procedure could allow the Court to examinethe strongly legally justified grievances often set against itsDecisions.

The existence of such a procedure will undoubtedly avoidthe great fickleness with which the decisions of the ConstitutionalCourts are taken and motivated.

I am still sure, maybe because I was one of them; that nomission is either healthier or more difficult than that of the Judge.Mixed with all kinds of passion, attracted by the humanweaknesses, the Judge must make sure that he is above all ofthem. Devoted to obscure and difficult works, the Judge must findthe reward of his efforts not in the noise of the fame but in thecalm satisfactions of his conscience.


27/27

16

He must bear in mind that he constitutes the dishonourand the scourge of our societies if he forgets the nobility of his

mission and manages to abuse the immense authority that oursocieties entrust to him.

Lord SEGUIER Antoine Mathieu, Magistrate, dealingwith the case of Marshal Ney, sued for treason, said theCourt gives judgement and does not render services.

What a beautiful, high and just idea of the mission of theJudge, Honourable members of the Constitutional Court:

A Memorandum written from his ejection seat ad nutum byBarrister LAWSON-LANCELOT Latevi Calvin George

ANC Member of National AssemblyChairman of the External Relations and Cooperation Committee

LawyerFormer Attorney General

At the Court of AppealAnd the Supreme Court of Togo

Documents

Note Me Lawson Exclusion ANC #Togo 2010 FR-UK