Speaking to Tunisie Numérique, Constitutional law professor Salsabil Klibi asserted that there was a necessity to return to the first correspondence, which involved two principal points.
The first correlates to the date of the plenary session of the amendment, estimating that it is not very significant as it has no statutory basis.
The second point is that the President of the Republic does not regard the rules of procedure of the Parliament as state law. According to Klibi, this point is confusing and enigmatic.
Remarking that she considers that Kais Saied views that this regulation does not befall under the laws of the state, because it contrasts with the Constitution and in special with Article 144 regulating the process of the cabinet reshuffle.
In the same context, she specified in her own reading that the President of the Republic considers that the administration is not obliged to take an oath before him, particularly since he considers that the regulation is opposite with the Constitution. . Hence, the rest of the procedures are null and empty.
Our speaker likewise considered that in addition to the taking of the constitutional oath, the problem is connected to the appointment of ministers.
According to article 89 on government, the oath is required when it is first put in place and not when it is changed.
She more emphasised that no minister can exercise his or her functions without being appointed by the head of state.
“We have to wait to know the stance of the President of the Republic on the designation of ministers so that they can exercise their functions, given that they are not obliged to take an oath before him,” she revealed .
What's happening in Tunisia?
Subscribe to our Youtube channel for updates.
