The legal framework behind the national dialogue
Kinshasa — The national dialogue announced by President Félix Tshisekedi must be understood as a political mechanism for consultation and pacification, not as a parallel institution, a Paris-based lawyer has argued in an interview.
Me Ben Touere, a member of the Paris Bar and a doctor of public law teaching at Sorbonne Paris Nord University, said the initiative can help broker compromises on peace, national cohesion, institutional reforms and the functioning of the state. However, he warned, it must not turn into a second Parliament, a parallel Government, a political court or a de facto constituent assembly.
“The national dialogue announced by President Félix Tshisekedi must be conceived as a political mechanism of consultation and pacification, not as a parallel institution,” he stated. “It can make it possible to seek compromises on peace, national cohesion, institutional reforms and the functioning of the State. On the other hand, it must become neither a Parliament bis, nor a parallel Government, nor a political jurisdiction, nor a de facto constituent assembly.”
Why political conclusions need constitutional translation
According to the legal scholar, any political conclusions emerging from the dialogue could only produce lasting legal effects once they have been translated by the institutions that are constitutionally competent to do so.
“A legislative reform must go through Parliament; a public policy falls to the Government; a question of constitutionality falls to the Constitutional Court; and a question reserved for the direct decision of the people must be submitted to them in the forms provided for by law,” he explained.
He added that the proposed scheme rests on a sequence: dialogue, consensus, intervention by the competent institutions, constitutional review and, where required or legally retained, popular consultation.
Sovereignty belongs to the people, not to dialogue participants
The analysis recalls that Article 5 of the Constitution enshrines the principle that national sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it directly through elections or referendum and indirectly through their representatives.
“Neither the majority, nor the opposition, nor the participants in a dialogue can therefore claim national sovereignty,” he stressed.
In the end, the lawyer argued, the process should aim to reform and consolidate the state through dialogue, rather than create mechanisms likely to weaken it or share its prerogatives.