Debate – Ouahbi sees the parliamentary joint session aimed at presenting the human rights council’s annual report as « unconstitutional »

PAM’s Secretary General, Abdellatif Ouahbi, called upon both heads of his party’s parliamentary teams to approach the presidents of the House of Representatives as well as the House of Councillors, in order to clarify the reasons behind the most recent constitutional breach that occurred in light of calling for a joint session to be held between both Parliamentary bodies, with the purpose of presenting this year’s annual report, which was previously conducted by the president of the National Council for human rights.

While addressing the presidents of PAM’s teams, Ouahbi emphasized that the terms and conditions for holding joint sessions are provided within articles 68 and 148 of the constitution -more specifically in the last paragraph- as well as within article 174 (4^th paragraph). The constitutional council, for its part, confirmed that parliamentary councils are legally allowed to hold joint sessions when the terms and conditions stipulated in the constitution are fully met, in total accordance with the provisions of article 68; However, the parliamentary councils shall be able to exercise their powers in joint form upon the approval of a revision draft related to the constitutional provisions in force, in light of their referral to the king, by decree, as stipulated in article 174 of the constitution.

By virtue of the above, “the provisions in articles 211 and 217 regarding the parliament’s capability to hold a joint session in order to discuss and evaluate public policies, do not comply with the constitution”, Ouahbi said in his statement.

Consequently, the right to hold a joint meeting to present the report conducted by the National Council for Human Rights is not expressly provided in Article 68 of the Constitution, nor does implicitly extract its bases from the provisions approved by the Constitutional Council, he added.

Ouahbi’s statement also came to clarify that discussions over the aforementioned report, besides others, as stipulated in chapter 12 of the constitution, shall be conducted by members of each council separately, provided that the constitutional council has previously indicated that the first paragraph of article 182 (the parliamentary bylaws), stipulates that institutions and bodies referred to in articles 161 and 170 of the constitution shall submit one report at least every year, for these reports are deposited within the council’s bureau, to be referred to the relevant committees later on, in order to be discussed in the presence of institutions’ and bodies’ chairmen, prior to their referral once again to the plenary session for deliberations.

Article 160 of the constitution stipulates that the aforementioned institutions and bodies are required to submit at least one report a year; however, reports shall be subject to discussion within the parliament (not the house of representatives), as stipulated in paragraph one… Meaning that discussions shall take place between members of each council separately, and not between chairmen of these institutions and bodies, Ouahdi noted.

The House of Representatives’ bylaws, especially those provided in chapter five (Articles 342 to 347), which the Constitutional Court declared conforming to the constitution, do not include any justification for holding a joint session between our council and the House of Councillors, nor do they discuss the contents and components of the report, he added.

In light of the above, Ouahbi highlighted that the presidents of institutions and bodies provided in chapter twelve, shall not -the same as the president of the supreme council of accounts- submit their reports to parliamentary councils. Furthermore, relevant reports shall not be submitted within a joint session, for such an act does not conform to the constitution.

In addition, Ouahbi stated that discussions over the aforementioned reports shall take place in each council separately, and among members of the same council exclusively, with the participation of the government in the process.

To conclude, Ouahbi stressed that chapter six of the constitution stipulates that “the constitutionality of regulations, their hierarchy, and the necessity to abide by them, are binding principles”, noting that article 134 suggests that “the constitutional court shall not accept appeals, for it binds all public authorities, as well as all administrative and judicial authorities, each within the limits of their powers and jurisdiction.

In the end, Ouahbi considered holding a joint session to be a legal breach for it does not comply with the laws in force, as well as the constitutional judiciary and the parliament’s bylaws.

This is an unfortunate precedent that lacks legal ground.