|Download the School calendar 2023-2024 (Official)
Haiti - Justice : the CSPJ, between contestations, contradictions and confusion...
Recall that in a letter dated July 24, 2012, the President of CSPJ had submitted to the Head of State, the list of three names to represent the CSPJ in the CEP. Remember also, that this choice came from a council comprising only four members, including the President of CSPJ on 9, while Article 13 of the Act creating the CSPJ, fixes at five the quorum necessary to conduct any deliberations. Several sectors of national life including ANAMAH and the CPP had qualified as illegal the decision of some members of CSPJ to choose three representatives to the CEP without the agreement of other members, while members of CSPJ, began the investigation of the 12 shortlisted candidates before considering a vote.
Anel Alexis Joseph, had then justified in saying "We have found the physical presence of everyone [8 of 9]. At the time of vote, four members left the room [Me Antoine Norgaisse, Me Gustave Pharaon, Me Dilia Lemaire et Me Néhémie Joseph], we continued the process and considered their positions as an abstention."
However, the minutes of the meeting of 24 July contradicts the statement of Me Anel Alexis Joseph since he mentions that he was "the only one to choose three names," while the day after that meeting, he declared, and insisted on Radio Vision 2000, on the fact that it was not him, who chose the three names as suggested by the rumor...
Moreover, the President of CSPJ had indicated that 4 on 9 members had approved the choice of representatives to the Permanent Electoral Council. However, the minutes of the meeting of July 24 shows only three votes : the President of CSPJ, Me Thiers Malette and Me. Jean Alix Civil, the Judge Mercier did not sign. In the protest letter it is stated "[...] for this specific case, you were only four in the meeting room and one of you has refrained to sign the minutes prepared in the circumstances [...] The vote of the President is recognized preponderant in case of a tie, for the purposes of decide between. Such was not the case, since you were the only to choose the three names, as noted in the minutes prepared for this purpose."
Following the many negative reactions, the President of CSPJ had indicated that this dispute would be discussed at the meeting of August 2 and that it would be finally ruled on these designations, which can be confirmed or refuted. In fact, the meeting of August 2, has led to no result and the nine members agreed to meet again on the issue on August 8...
Me. Néhémie Joseph, Representative of the Assembly of barrister practicing, certified member of CSPJ and a signatory of the letter declared "...there were 5 on 9 members who have not attended the meeting which ends on the choice of three names of persons that the President of CSPJ sent to the Presidency [...] us who have not attend this session, we did not approve what was done, because it is outside the law. We are 4 to sign this protest letter that we sent to the President of CSPJ and in this letter, we have not only challenged his way of doing, because it is written and we read it in the minutes of the meeting, it is the President who chose these three people in the presence of others, so it is not a vote [of choice] we had.
[...] And in a second time we have asked the President to reconsider this decision by retracting the three names he had sent to the Presidency [...] it's not the majority has chosen, the majority is 5 on 9for there is a quorum, and there were not 5 people in the room [...] we were all gone even before the meeting begins, the meeting has not started before us at all. In this sense, we believe that the realization of a hearing in our absence and saying [...] that it was an abstention from us, does not comply with the law, it is not ethical. We challenge what has been done and we ask the President to reconsider his decision [...] we were not present, we have not signed, only 3 persons [on 4] signed [...]"
See also :
HL/ S/ SL/ HaitiLibre