Hail to the Editor-in-Chief!

March 22: Constitutional Referendum

On April 6, the Guinean government published a new constitution. Two weeks earlier, at the bidding of the president Alpha Conde, the country held a constitutional referendum. Conde had called for a new constitution that would end presidential term limits, allowing him to hold power for longer.  The atmosphere leading up to the referendum was violent and chaotic: According to Human Rights Watch, security forces killed eight people and wounded at least two dozen others.. Some 40 people were forcibly disappeared. The referendum ultimately passed, with more than 90% approval—a suspiciously-high level of support. 

But the official Guinean constitution published on April 6 isn’t the one the Guinean public voted on in March. There are spotted dozens of differences between the text that was presented to the public ahead of the vote and the one that was published after it. Many of those changes further entrench Conde's power.

Now, lawyers in the country are trying to figure out how to proceed. Here to discuss this with us is Frederic Loua, the founding president of the Guinean legal non-profit Mêmes Droits pour Tous (MDT), and a member of the Guinean Bar Association. This interview has been translated from French and condensed.

What was the March 22 referendum about?

Guinea’s constitution, ratified in 2010, set presidential term limits—one president can only serve two terms. Last year, President Alpha Conde, who is in the second of his two terms, decided to essentially restart everything at zero, by putting together a new constitution so that he could run as president again.

But he didn’t really talk about that. He said that the new constitution was about reaffirming human rights, protecting the environment. He promised that the new constitution respected women’s rights, by banning child marriage and female genital mutilation, for example.

His real goal was to be able to run in the election again. The new constitution would allow that.

Many people objected to this, saying you can’t just change the constitution like you might change your shirt.

So there were several months of protests around the country.

Nonetheless, the referendum was held on March 22. During the voting period, there was an unprecedented wave of violence. Many people died.

In the midst of this chaos, the government said that the people had voted for the referendum, approving it with 90.76% of the vote. This number is likely drastically inflated.

But the text that was ratified by this unlikely margin wasn’t the text that the public voted on.

The government needs to publish the newly-approved text. They did so on April 6. But what they published was different than what had been circulated prior to the referendum. Many articles were changed.

But what we saw when it was published, was that they had changed many of the articles. I have been looking into this with some lawyers.

How much of it has been changed?

By our count, 21 articles were changed. 

What has changed?

In addition to what we knew about before the vote, the new text of the constitution alters the ability of independent candidates to run for president, as well as the nomination of judges to the constitutional court.

As some examples:

The text now says, “Each party or coalition of political parties can only present one candidate. This means that there can’t be any challenges to Conde in a primary from his own party, Rally of the Guinean People. This text was not in the original draft voted on March 22.

The constitution now does not allow independent candidates, i.e. candidates without a party, to run for president. So Conde has made a point of changing things to prevent other candidates from challenging him.

The new constitution also changes the transition of power. Whereas the draft submitted to the referendum says, “The president of the elected republic takes office 15 days after the proclamation of the final results,” the new version is different. It says, “The president of the republic elected takes office at the end of the outgoing president's mandate,” thus possibly altering the amount of time a leader can stay in power.
Those are just three of the changes. 

How have people reacted to this?

You can’t just change the constitution that was submitted to a public referendum as soon as it’s published!

So people have been taking this very seriously.

The Minister of Justice acknowledges the changes. But he has said that there was nothing to be antsy about, because these changes don’t actually alter the meaning of the constitution. 

But the Guinea Bar Association, to which I belong, has been arguing that the constitution must be withdrawn, because it is not the same text.

We have a constitutional crisis. We don’t know whether to follow this constitution or the one from 2010.

So what happens next?

We are going to go to the constitutional court to ask them to nullify the new constitution.

We hope to also press charges against the authors of this new, falsified document. We do not know exactly who they are, though we assume they work in the office of the president. Given that these are civil servants, this with seems to me a case of treason.

How does this fit into the history of Guinea and the elections of the past few years?

 The current president, Alpha Conde, came to power in 2010 after a turbulent period. The country had seen a coup and an assassination attempt.

 When he came to power, the country had recently ratified a new constitution that many hoped would reflect the republican ideals of Guinea. But Conde immediately tried to undo every democratic success we had had. He never respected the election. So obviously when it comes those to this most recent referendum people have been skeptical about his new changes.

 Conde has accused our previous constitution of being faulty, even sinful. But we can’t keep changing our constitution all the time.