Amid corruption allegations against its own members, the Transitional Presidential Council passes a measure critics call a “legal shield” designed to guarantee impunity—just weeks before its mandate expires.
Against a backdrop of heightened political tensions and corruption allegations targeting some of its members, Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council (CPT) has adopted a decree defining the organization and functioning of the High Court of Justice. Published in the official government gazette, Le Moniteur, on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, the text—presented as a tool to strengthen the rule of law and combat impunity—is already being sharply denounced by numerous observers as a legal maneuver designed to protect transitional authorities themselves, with less than two months remaining before the theoretical end of their mandate.
The decree, spanning seven pages, is based on an initial preamble citing a “legal vacuum characterized by the absence of an Organic Law” and its harmful consequences for democracy. It aims to regulate the procedure for indicting and trying “senior State officials” before the High Court of Justice, as provided for in Article 186 of the Constitution.
This exceptional jurisdiction, formed when the Senate constitutes itself as a court, has authority to try the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, ministers, members of the Permanent Electoral Council and the Superior Court of Accounts, judges and prosecutors of the Court of Cassation, as well as the Citizen Protector, for crimes and offenses committed in the exercise of their duties.
The text meticulously details the procedure: referral by the Chamber of Deputies by a two-thirds majority, investigation by a senatorial commission, and trial by the High Court, whose verdict (conviction or acquittal) must also be adopted by a two-thirds majority of senators. Penalties range from removal from office to a ban on holding any public position for 5 to 15 years.
The publication of this decree has sparked an outcry. For many jurists, political actors, and civil society members, the timing is anything but coincidental.
Some argue that this decree was hastily adopted while presidential councilors of the CPT are directly implicated in scandals involving embezzlement of public funds and corruption.
The decree comes amid the complete absence of a functioning Parliament. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate have been vacant for years, making the implementation of the cumbersome procedures required by the text virtually impossible in the immediate term.
“They are decreeing a procedure that requires a Parliament, while they have failed to organize elections to reconstitute one. It’s a perfect vicious circle that guarantees impunity,” observed a human rights activist.
A “Legal Parachute” for Transitional Leaders?
The harshest criticism concerns the timing of this adoption. The CPT’s mandate, originally scheduled to expire on February 7, 2026, is entering its final phase. Several voices argue that this decree is a “parachute” or “legal shield” tailor-made for Council members, anticipating potential prosecutions once their functional immunity is lifted.
Article 26 of the decree is particularly revealing: it expressly extends the provisions concerning the President of the Republic to the presidential councilors of the CPT.
This Article 26 stipulates that the rules applicable to the President of the Republic “are applicable both for the present and for the future to Presidential Councilors,” thus placing them under the exclusive umbrella of the High Court of Justice for acts committed during their transitional mandate.
The decree also seeks to clarify—or lock down—the division of jurisdictional authority. Article 13 stipulates that ordinary courts cannot hear cases involving offenses committed by a high official in the exercise of their duties, as such cases fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court. They must recuse themselves in favor of the latter.
This provision is perceived as a means of obstructing ongoing or future judicial investigations conducted by independent investigating judges against figures in power, by invoking the incompetence of ordinary courts.
Defamation Decree Also Under Fire
Another decree adopted by the CPT, concerning defamation, is also drawing criticism. Pierre Espérance, Executive Director of the National Human Rights Defense Network (RNDDH), considers it a direct attack on freedom of expression. The human rights defender argues that this text opens the door to abusive restrictions against one of the freedoms hard-won by the Haitian people.
Officially, the transitional government continues to defend this decree as a historic advance. In its explanatory memorandum, the Transitional Presidential Council claims to want to “end a cycle of impunity” and facilitate the indictment of senior state officials. The Ministry of Justice views it as a necessary tool to guarantee a fair trial with procedural safeguards before a special and solemn jurisdiction.
Yet on the ground, skepticism prevails. The international community, which is closely monitoring the transition, has not yet officially reacted. Civil society groups are already calling for
As the countdown to the February 7, 2026, deadline has begun, this High Court of Justice decree adds to the numerous political disputes clouding Haiti’s horizon. It is perceived less as an instrument of accountability than as the final act of a transitional government anxious to shield itself from the consequences of its own governance.
