Can't read it? Listen now!
The controversy over the dismissal of Prime Minister Garry Conille by the Presidential Transition Council (CPT) raises important questions about the limits of power during Haiti’s democratic transition. Conille, who served as interim prime minister for only six months, has rejected the council’s decision as illegal, pointing to a lack of constitutional or legal basis for such an action by the CPT.
The CPT was formed in April 2024 as part of a transition plan meant to stabilize Haiti and pave the way for democratic governance amid a worsening security and humanitarian crisis. Its mandate includes appointing government officials and managing state affairs during this period of transition. However, critics, including Conille, argue that the council’s powers do not extend to dismissing the prime minister.
Conille’s primary argument is that the CPT’s move oversteps its mandate, citing key legal texts that govern the transitional process. According to him, the April 3 Accord and the Decree of May 27, 2024, which regulate the functioning of the transitional government, do not explicitly grant the CPT authority to dismiss the prime minister. Article 37 of the decree governing the CPT stipulates that any removal of the prime minister must follow documented governance issues and require the prime minister’s resignation, implying a more collaborative or structured process rather than unilateral action by the council.
Furthermore, Conille asserts that the Haitian Constitution, specifically Article 158, makes clear that the prime minister is accountable to Parliament. While Haiti’s Parliament has been inactive due to political and security crises, Conille maintains that even during the transitional period, no body other than Parliament—or processes resembling parliamentary oversight—can dismiss the head of government.
Proponents of the CPT’s decision argue that the council is operating within a unique framework designed to address Haiti’s pressing governance challenges. In their view, the CPT has been granted exceptional authority to ensure effective leadership during the transition. Some legal experts sympathetic to this position suggest that extraordinary times necessitate broader interpretations of transitional powers, even if such interpretations push against conventional norms.
However, this approach has drawn criticism from legal scholars, former government officials, and civil society leaders, who fear that expanding the CPT’s powers without clear legal backing risks undermining Haiti’s fragile democratic norms. They caution that such actions may set dangerous precedents and erode public trust in transitional institutions.
Conille’s removal—and the broader controversy it has engendered—reflects the inherent tension within Haiti’s transitional framework. The CPT’s decision, perceived by some as an overreach, highlights the fragility of governance arrangements during times of crisis. It underscores the delicate balance between asserting necessary control in a tumultuous context and respecting established norms and legal constraints.
Observers worry that disputes over the CPT’s authority could exacerbate political instability, detracting from pressing issues such as insecurity, economic hardship, and a humanitarian crisis exacerbated by gang violence. For Haiti to achieve meaningful democratic governance, the ongoing conflict between transitional authorities and traditional constitutional norms must be addressed with transparency, dialogue, and adherence to legal frameworks.
To prevent further destabilization, some analysts have recommended independent mediation, similar to the failed attempts by the Organization of American States (OAS) to mediate between Conille and the CPT. Such efforts could provide a forum for clarifying the council’s mandate and roles, thereby fostering a more stable environment for Haiti’s democratic transition. Meanwhile, calls for strengthening legal institutions, reactivating parliamentary functions, and fostering inclusive governance dialogue are seen as crucial steps toward restoring public trust and ensuring a legitimate political transition.
