Political Transition in Haiti: The Court of Cassation Backed Down in the Face of External Threats
professional honesty obliges me not to deceive citizens when I intervene in public debate and am given the opportunity to comment on a legal issue.
By La Rédaction · Port-au-Prince · · 11 min read · Updated 24 April 2026
Translated from French — AI-assisted and reviewed by the editorial team. The French version is authoritative. Read the original · About our translation policy
My professional honesty obliges me not to deceive citizens when I intervene in public debate and am given the opportunity to comment on a legal issue. This stance is also consistent with my social mission: to state the law, after the legislators, without complacency, with a view to defending the general interest.
I allow myself to present to public opinion an uncompromising analysis, because intellectual neutrality, in this context, can only help the corrupt and criminals, and not a people in search of deliverance.
I like the expression « deliverance », because it better corresponds to the current context. It evokes the idea of transition: the Haitian people, currently experiencing unprecedented distress, need ethical, intellectual, and political healing. Haiti must move from a society of corruption to a society of integrity and moralization; from a society of mediocrity to a society of excellence and quality; from a divided, disunited, and individualistic society to a society of unity and solidarity; from superficial patriotism to authentic nationalism.
In the US Senate, the US Chargé d'Affaires stated that the latest decisions concerning the departure of the Presidential Transitional Council (CPT) and the transfer of power to Didier Alix Fils-Aimé are dictated by the defense of American interests in Haiti. This stance is strategic. Former Secretary Condoleezza Rice once stated that, in every file she examines, she first seeks the interest of the United States. Americans are patriotic; that is why I admire them. I ardently wish that there were patriotic Haitians, capable of defending, first and foremost, the interests of their country.
The fact that US authorities defend US interests in Haiti does not shock me. On the contrary, I want to be inspired by their patriotism, characterized by a deep devotion to their country. I have often said it: our elites must be trained on this basis.
This presentation by the US Chargé d'Affaires in Haiti to the US Senate, commented on by several analysts, allowed me to better understand why the Superior Council of the Judiciary and the Court of Cassation of the Republic — which is a true Supreme Court — distanced themselves from political negotiations regarding the possibility of placing a judge from the Court of Cassation at the head of the country, after the void left by the Presidential Transitional Council (CPT) whose mission expired on February 7, 2026.
Regarding the Superior Council of the Judiciary
It is surprising, however, that the Superior Council of the Judiciary — which, it must be acknowledged, enjoys no direct popular legitimacy, given its current composition — asserts that the judiciary « is not involved in politics ». The CSPJ is the product of an unconstitutional text. The legislators who voted for it, as well as the executive power that published it, forgot an essential truth: in a democracy, there is no power without popular consecration. How can individuals claim to exercise power in a democratic republic without having been invested with their own constitutional mandate? Only the Constitution determines the conditions for accessing power and the modalities of its exercise, not a law. A Superior Council of the « Judiciary » devoid of popular mandate resembles a democratic and constitutional joke. Those who drafted the 1927 law on the composition of the judiciary were, in this respect, more clear-sighted. The idea of creating a body responsible for the governance of justice and the discipline of magistrates is excellent since, according to Article 175 of the Constitution, judicial power is exercised by judges. However, by integrating representatives of the Bar, civil society, human rights organizations, as well as commissioners representing the executive power into the governance of justice, the democratic ideal of justice enshrined in the 1987 Constitution is perverted. If someone can exercise power in a democratic republic without a mandate, then our country ceases to be both a republic and a democracy. The defeat of Haitian justice began with its conscious privatization by certain interest groups, under the influence of foreign donors or funders eager to impose their own vision of justice, to the detriment of that enshrined in the founding text of 1987. Consequently, the Superior Council of the Judiciary becomes a useless — and potentially corrupt — bureaucracy because it is, in part, cut off from the people. In principle, judges should be dismissed following an investigation conducted by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, then submitted to Parliament. This is how the issue of public office holders is handled in a democracy. For judges belong to a power whose function is part of national sovereignty, which is exercised by the three branches of government, sharing its unity. From where does a member of the Bar or a human rights organization derive sufficient democratic legitimacy to decide on the dismissal of a judge from the judicial system? This is a true chaos, maintained in the governance of the judiciary, which our Constitution has elevated to the rank of legitimate and democratic power. Regarding the Court of Cassation
Our Court of Cassation, the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive powers, and interpreter of the Constitution responsible for guaranteeing its supremacy (notably through constitutional review), is an institution with a political dimension. Its role extends to the defense of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms. When judges intervene in the budgetary debate related to justice policy, they also exercise a political function. In this sense, all power is political. Our Constitution defines the identity of the State. What does the Court of Cassation say about monocephalism and bicephalism? Under what conditions is bicephalism possible? The identity of the State, the functioning of democracy, and the rule of law are political questions that fall, at the highest level, under the purview of the Court of Cassation — our Supreme Court — as understood by the eminent lawyer and law professor Camille Fièvre. However, the Court of Cassation, entangled and unable to fully assume this role — whether by survival strategy or by misunderstanding the true extent of its prerogatives — eventually yielded to external pressures, signifying to the Haitian nation a de facto renunciation of its status as a power. Yet, justice, as a delegated and consented sovereign power, belongs not to judges, but to the people, the sole holders of national sovereignty. The CSPJ's note is a betrayal! Mandated in the name of the people, judges cannot renounce the status of power conferred upon them by the Constitution. The judges of our Supreme Court are the privileged guardians of the constitutional text: under no circumstances can they refuse to protect its supremacy. This is their fundamental function. Let's be honest, however! The amended constitutional text does not confer any explicit political role on the judiciary in the event of a presidential vacancy. But, as a Supreme Court, it has issued no alert about its own dysfunction as an instance for the protection of democracy and the rule of law. This is a major contradiction with regard to its mission in our parliamentary democracy: to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution and the primacy of the rule of law. Our defeat, therefore, does not come solely from the imposition of decisions by foreign rulers: it is primarily intellectual. This misunderstanding of the 1987 constitutional text, among certain Haitian actors, has led them to devise legal makeshift solutions intended to frame exceptional situations, in the name — they say — of increased fidelity to the Constitution. However, wanting to « stay closer » to the text in an exceptional situation, which requires an examination of a different nature, can lead to illegal and illegitimate actions, contrary to the democratic spirit, the political rights of citizens, and the balance of decision-making bodies. This is why Mr. Didier Fils-Aimé's acceptance to lead a government without parliamentary checks and balances required a clear normative framework: without it, power recomposes, expands, and distorts itself according to the institutional void, at the risk of further weakening the rule of law. Let's Create a New Normal!
Considering the history of transitions worldwide — and those we have already experienced in Haiti — it becomes clear that one cannot govern sustainably in exceptional circumstances without a clear framework. It is therefore essential to create a new transitional normativity to frame this provisional governance and credibly lead to the return to the rule of law, notably through the organization of free, honest, and inclusive elections. Here is a coherent and politically defensible roadmap. 1) Open a Structured Debate on Constitutional Reform, Through a Truly Constituent Approach
The current conjuncture is conducive to a serious national debate on the possibility — or not — of constitutional change in Haiti. But one condition is non-negotiable: a true constituent will must be established. The 1987 Constitution benefited from a dual legitimacy, which partly explains its longevity :
The transition must be led by an independent government, predominantly composed of technocrats, to ensure political neutrality compatible with its mission. Its priorities must be clear:
No transition will be taken seriously if it leaves intact the system that produced the collapse. Fighting corruption and impunity therefore implies strengthening the judicial apparatus and allowing for solid investigations and fair trials against perpetrators of corruption crimes and trafficking of all kinds. But the moral and political priority must also be this: to open an institutional space for victims. Thousands of people have suffered atrocities. They must be able to testify, be recognized, and obtain reparations. A transition without justice becomes a mere political arrangement. A transition with justice opens up reconstruction. 4) Depoliticize Administration and Launch Social Cohesion Reforms
Public administration must be depoliticized and put back at the service of citizens. This requires public management rules based on:
Professor of Constitutional Law and Advanced Legal Research Methodology at the Faculty of Law and Economic Sciences of the State University
Professor of Philosophy.
Université du Québec à Montréal
It is surprising, however, that the Superior Council of the Judiciary — which, it must be acknowledged, enjoys no direct popular legitimacy, given its current composition — asserts that the judiciary « is not involved in politics ». The CSPJ is the product of an unconstitutional text. The legislators who voted for it, as well as the executive power that published it, forgot an essential truth: in a democracy, there is no power without popular consecration. How can individuals claim to exercise power in a democratic republic without having been invested with their own constitutional mandate? Only the Constitution determines the conditions for accessing power and the modalities of its exercise, not a law. A Superior Council of the « Judiciary » devoid of popular mandate resembles a democratic and constitutional joke. Those who drafted the 1927 law on the composition of the judiciary were, in this respect, more clear-sighted. The idea of creating a body responsible for the governance of justice and the discipline of magistrates is excellent since, according to Article 175 of the Constitution, judicial power is exercised by judges. However, by integrating representatives of the Bar, civil society, human rights organizations, as well as commissioners representing the executive power into the governance of justice, the democratic ideal of justice enshrined in the 1987 Constitution is perverted. If someone can exercise power in a democratic republic without a mandate, then our country ceases to be both a republic and a democracy. The defeat of Haitian justice began with its conscious privatization by certain interest groups, under the influence of foreign donors or funders eager to impose their own vision of justice, to the detriment of that enshrined in the founding text of 1987. Consequently, the Superior Council of the Judiciary becomes a useless — and potentially corrupt — bureaucracy because it is, in part, cut off from the people. In principle, judges should be dismissed following an investigation conducted by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, then submitted to Parliament. This is how the issue of public office holders is handled in a democracy. For judges belong to a power whose function is part of national sovereignty, which is exercised by the three branches of government, sharing its unity. From where does a member of the Bar or a human rights organization derive sufficient democratic legitimacy to decide on the dismissal of a judge from the judicial system? This is a true chaos, maintained in the governance of the judiciary, which our Constitution has elevated to the rank of legitimate and democratic power. Regarding the Court of Cassation
Our Court of Cassation, the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive powers, and interpreter of the Constitution responsible for guaranteeing its supremacy (notably through constitutional review), is an institution with a political dimension. Its role extends to the defense of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms. When judges intervene in the budgetary debate related to justice policy, they also exercise a political function. In this sense, all power is political. Our Constitution defines the identity of the State. What does the Court of Cassation say about monocephalism and bicephalism? Under what conditions is bicephalism possible? The identity of the State, the functioning of democracy, and the rule of law are political questions that fall, at the highest level, under the purview of the Court of Cassation — our Supreme Court — as understood by the eminent lawyer and law professor Camille Fièvre. However, the Court of Cassation, entangled and unable to fully assume this role — whether by survival strategy or by misunderstanding the true extent of its prerogatives — eventually yielded to external pressures, signifying to the Haitian nation a de facto renunciation of its status as a power. Yet, justice, as a delegated and consented sovereign power, belongs not to judges, but to the people, the sole holders of national sovereignty. The CSPJ's note is a betrayal! Mandated in the name of the people, judges cannot renounce the status of power conferred upon them by the Constitution. The judges of our Supreme Court are the privileged guardians of the constitutional text: under no circumstances can they refuse to protect its supremacy. This is their fundamental function. Let's be honest, however! The amended constitutional text does not confer any explicit political role on the judiciary in the event of a presidential vacancy. But, as a Supreme Court, it has issued no alert about its own dysfunction as an instance for the protection of democracy and the rule of law. This is a major contradiction with regard to its mission in our parliamentary democracy: to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution and the primacy of the rule of law. Our defeat, therefore, does not come solely from the imposition of decisions by foreign rulers: it is primarily intellectual. This misunderstanding of the 1987 constitutional text, among certain Haitian actors, has led them to devise legal makeshift solutions intended to frame exceptional situations, in the name — they say — of increased fidelity to the Constitution. However, wanting to « stay closer » to the text in an exceptional situation, which requires an examination of a different nature, can lead to illegal and illegitimate actions, contrary to the democratic spirit, the political rights of citizens, and the balance of decision-making bodies. This is why Mr. Didier Fils-Aimé's acceptance to lead a government without parliamentary checks and balances required a clear normative framework: without it, power recomposes, expands, and distorts itself according to the institutional void, at the risk of further weakening the rule of law. Let's Create a New Normal!
Considering the history of transitions worldwide — and those we have already experienced in Haiti — it becomes clear that one cannot govern sustainably in exceptional circumstances without a clear framework. It is therefore essential to create a new transitional normativity to frame this provisional governance and credibly lead to the return to the rule of law, notably through the organization of free, honest, and inclusive elections. Here is a coherent and politically defensible roadmap. 1) Open a Structured Debate on Constitutional Reform, Through a Truly Constituent Approach
The current conjuncture is conducive to a serious national debate on the possibility — or not — of constitutional change in Haiti. But one condition is non-negotiable: a true constituent will must be established. The 1987 Constitution benefited from a dual legitimacy, which partly explains its longevity :
- the people chose the constituents responsible for drafting the text;
- then they validated this text by a referendum vote.
- legal philosophers;
- political scientists;
- anthropologists;
- sociologists;
- economists;
- historians;
- law professors, jurists, men of letters;
- former parliamentarians, former Ministers of Justice, and political leaders.
The transition must be led by an independent government, predominantly composed of technocrats, to ensure political neutrality compatible with its mission. Its priorities must be clear:
- organize elections;
- manage security and humanitarian emergencies;
- restore a minimum of institutional functioning;
- open public decision-making to the participation of various social and political groups, to avoid the capture of power by a single clan.
No transition will be taken seriously if it leaves intact the system that produced the collapse. Fighting corruption and impunity therefore implies strengthening the judicial apparatus and allowing for solid investigations and fair trials against perpetrators of corruption crimes and trafficking of all kinds. But the moral and political priority must also be this: to open an institutional space for victims. Thousands of people have suffered atrocities. They must be able to testify, be recognized, and obtain reparations. A transition without justice becomes a mere political arrangement. A transition with justice opens up reconstruction. 4) Depoliticize Administration and Launch Social Cohesion Reforms
Public administration must be depoliticized and put back at the service of citizens. This requires public management rules based on:
- competence;
- transparency;
- equal access;
- accountability.
Professor of Constitutional Law and Advanced Legal Research Methodology at the Faculty of Law and Economic Sciences of the State University
Professor of Philosophy.
Université du Québec à Montréal
