Who will succeed the CPT after February 7, 2026?

The question of the post-CPT era is emerging as one of the major political challenges in Haiti, as February 7, 2026, the date marking the end of their mandate, approaches. Who will exercise power from this constitutionally symbolic deadline? And what is the real status of negotiations between the various political forces to avoid a new institutional vacuum?

Established under the political agreement of April 3, 2024, the CPT's main mission was to restore a minimum of stability, get the state functioning again, and create the necessary conditions for organizing credible elections. However, with only a few days left until the end of its mandate, its record remains largely contested. Insecurity persists, despite efforts to address it. In this context, the period after February 7, 2026, appears uncertain and highly disputed.

Officially, some CPT members reaffirm their commitment to respect the set deadline and cede power on the scheduled date. But the central question remains: to whom? To date, no clearly defined succession authority has achieved consensus. Several avenues are under discussion, revealing deep divergences within the political class.

A first trend, supported by a large coalition of political parties and organizations, advocates for a new, limited-duration transition, without the CPT. These actors believe that the current formula has shown its limits and call for the establishment of a new, more streamlined transitional governance structure with a clear mandate: security, urgent institutional reforms, and the organization of general elections. For them, February 7, 2026, should not mark a return to improvisation, but the opening of a new political framework based on a broader agreement.

Other political forces propose a different option: entrusting the leadership of the transition to a figure from the judiciary, particularly from the state's high courts, to ensure a certain institutional neutrality. This formula would aim to reassure political actors, civil society, and the international community alike, while avoiding excessive personalization of power in an already polarized context.

In parallel, several voices, from both civil society and religious circles, are calling for an inclusive and urgent national dialogue. The objective would be to reach a comprehensive political agreement before the February 2026 deadline, to clearly define the terms of succession, the duration of any potential transition, and the minimum institutional guarantees to ensure the continuity of the state. The Catholic Church, among others, has expressed its willingness to facilitate mediation between political actors, aware of the risks of increased instability in the event of a deadlock.

Negotiations, though ongoing, remain fragmented. They often take place bilaterally or within restricted political circles, without a unifying formal framework. Disagreements particularly concern the duration of any new transition, the method of appointing leaders, the role of international actors, and the actual place of non-partisan social forces in the decision-making process.