The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court became a lightning rod of sorts to repel all appeals against the election victory of President Nicolás Maduro. In its effort to defend the rise of the “son of Chávez,” the judges appealed to all kinds of reasons to dismiss citizens’ protests.
In the case of the claim filed by the civil association Transparency Venezuela, the judges in a joint resolution drew on technicalities to avoid the core issue: the unfair tactics used by Maduro’s campaign, who came to power after a narrow win in the elections on April 14, 2013.
“This Court determines that the filing of legal actions is not part of the daily operations of a private entity, and in this case, its bylaws, which define how any legal person expresses its own will independent from that of its members, clearly state that the Board of Directors of the Civil Association, and not its Executive Director, has the power to appoint proxies. Therefore, the lawyers who filed the appropriate action are not representing who they claim, since the person who granted the power by which they acted not is empowered to do so,” declared the judges.
But that was not the core issue. In view of the wall of silence raised by the National Electoral Council (CNE), Transparency Venezuela appeared before the TSJ on June 27, 2013, to demand a response for the alleged violation of the Organic Law of Electoral Processes. The NGO raised its voice after finding that the state-owned institutions and corporations put their facilities at the government’s disposal to promote Maduro’s candidacy.
The civil association had demanded the CNE to open an investigation “to establish responsibilities regarding the placing of banned propaganda and use of public resources for the benefit of a political candidate” in various government agencies. However, on August 7, 2013, the Constitutional Court decided to reject this request. The Supreme Court judges were more concerned about Transparency Venezuela’s bylaws than the alleged deviations that marred the presidential election.
Extract of the judgment
“(…) the filing of legal actions is not part of the daily operations of a private entity, and in this case, its bylaws, which define how any legal person expresses its own will independent from that of its members, clearly state that the Board of Directors of the Civil Association, and not its Executive Director, has the power to appoint proxies. Therefore, the lawyers who filed the appropriate action are not representing who they claim, since the person who granted the power by which they acted not is empowered to do so (…)”