PORT-AU-PRINCE.— By adopting a decree aimed at exempting some of its members from common law justice after February 7, the Transitional Presidential Council (CPT) crosses a red line with major institutional consequences. Under the guise of formal legality, this text appears not as a reform but as a self-protection maneuver, adopted on the eve of the end of the transitional authorities' mandate.
For the FUSION of Social Democrats political party, the interpretation is unambiguous: it is neither a stability mechanism nor a guarantee of state continuity, but a judicial lock-in designed to prevent any accountability. When the decree ceases to be an instrument serving the Nation to become a shield for outgoing leaders, the very essence of the rule of law is subverted.
At the heart of the criticism is the establishment of an exceptional regime. By protecting a few officials while leaving the population exposed to often expeditious justice, the CPT would enshrine a double standard. This logic directly clashes with the fundamental principle of equality before the law and revives the specter of institutionalized impunity.
In a firm stance, FUSION reiterates several non-negotiable principles:
- no decree can place leaders above the law;
- no function, even transitional, confers a right to impunity;
- the end of a mandate cannot justify a post-hoc judicial lock-in.
According to the party, this decree primarily betrays a fear: that of having to answer for its actions. However, it insists, the law is not intended to whitewash potential political or financial abuses. It exists to protect the Republic, ensure public accountability, and preserve citizens' trust in institutions.
Haiti's political history, marked by authoritarian excesses and the erosion of justice, recalls a constant truth: governing does not mean declaring oneself untouchable, but accepting to be judged according to the same rules as everyone else. As such, FUSION demands the immediate repeal of any self-immunity decree and calls for the CPT's departure on February 7, with transparency and strict adherence to common law.
In a context of deep crisis, where the legitimacy of the state is already weakened, this controversy goes beyond a simple legal framework. It raises a central question: does the transitional power intend to close the chapter of exception through accountability, or through impunity? Because, as FUSION emphasizes, the rule of law is not proclaimed by decree; it is demonstrated by responsibility.
Jean Mapou