The “National Dialogue on the Electoral Legislative Package” was scheduled for this Thursday and intended to encourage “listening and reflection on the electoral legislative package” that is being considered by the National Assembly, with various segments of civil society.
Speakers included former OAA president Luis Paulo Monteiro, coordinator of the Angolan Social Political Observatory (OPSA), Sérgio Calundungo, coordinator of the Angolan Electoral Observatory, Luis Jimbo, activists Luaty Beirão and Cesaltina Cutaia, journalists such as Reginaldo Silva and Teixeira Cândido (former president of the union), television commentators Bali Chionga and José Pakisi Mendonça, and researchers Cesaltina Abreu and David Boio.
The six lawyers who filed the injunction asked the Court to order the event not to take place because they disagreed with the OAA's authority to promote an event of this nature.
According to the claimants, the OAA Statute “does not include provisions relating to legislative initiative and the exercise of political power” so that this class entity does not have the legitimacy to promote consultation processes dedicated to analyzing the electoral legislative package, nor any competence to deal with matters of an electoral nature, as is the case”.
They therefore requested that the court hold the debate “and that a definitive judicial decision be made regarding the defendant’s competence to promote an act of this nature”.
To which the judges of the Court of Appeal agreed, considering, in their ruling, that, in the attributions of the Bar Association, as defined in its statute, no attributions related to this event are included, so that an activity of this nature “is illegal, allowing recourse to “public force” to enforce the decision.
The Court also understands that carrying out this activity could cause “the loss of prestige of the OAA” for “acting outside the Constitution and the law, without support from its statutory attributions”, which could generate “distrust” in society regarding its credibility.
“The violation of such values constitutes irreparable or difficult to repair damage that must be prevented from occurring,” concluded the judges, who, in addition to ordering the suspension of the debate, admit the use of “public force to enforce the decision.”
