Moldovan president will be temporarily removed from office

Constitutional conflict between Moldovan president Igor Dodon and pro-Romanian parliament majority broke out in September 2017. The government sent Moldovan troops to international NATO military exercises despite strong presidents opposition. As a result of the conflict President Dodon resigned a minister of defence as a supreme commander-in-chief.

On 12 September 2017, prime minister Pavel Filip put forward to President Dodon the candidature of Eugen Sturza for the position of defence minister; the head of state turned down this proposal. Subsequently, the PM repeatedly put up the same candidacy, which was again rejected by the head of state. Prime minister appealed to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court on October 20 decided that the speaker of parliament or the prime minister will hold office of president on an interim basis for issuing the decree to name the minister of defense. Given that the president deliberately refused to fulfill the constitutional obligation to name the candidate proposed two times by the premier for minister of defense, this will be temporarily removed from office.

The current composition of the Constitutional Court exceeded the constitutional limits as it shouldn’t have allowed the speaker of parliament or the prime minister to hold office of president on an interim basis so as to sign the decree to name the minister of defense, said invitees of the talk show “Key issue” on NTV Moldova channel.

Socialist MP Vlad Batrancea said the Constitutional Court exceeded the constitutional limits and law norms. “The judges showed that they serve the Democratic Party and are politically controlled. These people rewrite the text of the Constitution and draw friendly conclusions resulting from preambles that do not exist in the supreme law,” he stated.

Politologist Zurab Todua noted that by its decision, the Constitutional Court worsened the situation and aggravated the impasse concerning the appointment of the minister of defense. The Court shouldn’t have dealt with something like this. “The Constitutional Court in other states does not interpret the Constitution and does not adopt decisions that in some parts replace the supreme law or supplement it. This Court everywhere simply checks the compliance of the bills passed by Parliament with the Constitution,” he said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *