2026-02-13

The Superior Council of the Judiciary adopted Resolution No. CSPJ-SP/02-2026/887 on February 10, formally barring all judges from political participation. The resolution was signed by all eight CSPJ members including President Jean-Joseph Lebrun and Vice-President Barthelemy Altenor. Article 1 prohibits judges at all levels and ranks from any participation in political activities and requires them to remain outside the political arena. Article 2 bars any behavior, statement, or action likely to undermine judicial impartiality or harm the image and dignity of the judicial institution. Article 3 establishes disciplinary sanctions for violations. The resolution directly forecloses scenarios proposed during post-CPT transition negotiations in which a Court of Cassation judge would be installed as provisional president. Various political actors had advocated for this arrangement, but the CSPJ ruling now makes clear that any judge accepting such a role would face disciplinary sanctions. This represents the judiciary's institutional assertion of independence at a moment when executive power is concentrated in Prime Minister Fils-Aime's hands without a presidential counterweight. The timing of the resolution is significant. It was adopted on February 10, three days after the CPT mandate expired on February 7, and published on February 12. This suggests the CSPJ anticipated or responded to proposals that emerged during the final days of CPT negotiations about alternative governance structures. By establishing an explicit prohibition, the CSPJ removed one category of potential constitutional workarounds that could have been used to install a provisional president outside the electoral process. February 13, 2026 For international stakeholders, this resolution clarifies the legal parameters within which the transition must operate. The August 30 electoral timeline proceeds with Fils-Aime holding executive power absent any provisional president designation. The judiciary has drawn a clear institutional boundary and signaled it will not provide a legal fig leaf for political arrangements that compromise judicial independence. This reduces scenarios in which competing political factions could claim legitimacy based on judicial participation.