Last Tuesday, Ukraine's Constitutional Court began its hearing on the legality of President Viktor Yushchenko's disputed order to dissolve the Verkhovna Rada and call early elections. The court has 15 days to reach a preliminary decision on the case, and then a six-judge panel will hold a second hearing on the constitutionality of the President's decree. The second panel faces no time limit, but with elections slated for May 27, the judges have been asked to speed up the process.
Yushchenko stressed the new vote would go ahead regardless of any ruling from the court, but admitted that the date could be postponed due to lack of preparation time. After talks last Friday with his main political rival Prime Minister Yanukovych, Yushchenko said he was ready to suspend his April 2 order if the Rada agreed to adopt a number of laws that govern how a parliamentary majority can be formed and how power is divided in Ukraine. In addition, Yushchenko seemed prepared to give lawmakers a chance to reform electoral legislation should the early elections happen in the summer.
Earlier, Yanukovych said if the court ruled Yushchenko's decree unconstitutional, his majority in the 450-seat Rada could launch impeachment proceedings against him.
Earlier this month, Yanukovych that he was ready to go to the polls only if a presidential election were held at the same time. The President immediately rejected the proposal.
Opposition boycotts Rada
Meanwhile, more than 160 opposition lawmakers from Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party and Yulia Tymoshenko's party Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko announced they were boycotting the Rada to lend more legitimacy to Yushchenko’s decision to dissolve the house.
Oleksandr Lytvynenko, an analyst with the Kyiv-based Razumkov Centre for Economy and Political Studies, says the opposition’s decision was a "successful move to keep the Rada de facto paralysed. Even in the eyes of the ruling coalition, the Rada's prospects are now pretty dim."
The heavily politicised Constitutional Court now faces something of a conundrum. Five judges said earlier they would abstain from the decision making process, citing enormous political pressure. Nonetheless, the 18-judge panel has thus far remained intact.
Ex-judge Mykola Kozyubra accused the judges of lacking skill and experience in constitutional matters. They all come from common law legal background and have no idea how to interpret the Constitution, he claimed.
"The present panel was formed not on the grounds of professionalism, but rather on the basis of their political affiliation and personal allegiances," Kozyubra was quoted in the press as saying last week.
President alleges corruption
On the eve of the hearing, Yushchenko sent a letter to the Constitutional Court alleging corruption on the part of constitutional judge Syuzanna Stanik.
The State Security Service claimed that a relative of Stanik had obtained property worth USD 12 million in an attempt to sway the judge’s opinion. Stanik refuted the allegations, as did the Prosecutor General's Office.
Yanukovych's allies accused Yushchenko of pressurising the court via the secret service. Acting under orders from Yanukovych,
prosecutors launched a criminal case against alleged interference in the judges’ decision-making process.
Complicating the situation ever further, Yushchneko’s ally in the Court Volodymyr Shapoval announced he would be filing his resignation, but only after the hearings were over. He said he refused to work in the court which did not have the society's absolute confidence. "Only a professional and independent court has the moral right to interpret fundamental laws. Unfortunately, the present court doesn't comply with such standards," he said.
Yuriy Miroshnichenko, an MP from Yanukovych's Party of Regions, called Shapoval's move a "demonstration of disagreement with the President's legal position." Shapoval however denied the claim, saying his "personal sympathies are on Yushchenko's side."
In this context, it is rather hard to predict the verdict. The court could reach a neutral decision, ruling in favour of neither side. "It is quite possible there will be no decision at all," said Kozyubra, adding that such a choice would hardly help defuse the tension. "It's not the Constitutional Court that can calm the passions. It’s politicians who should realise their responsibility to reach a civilised outcome…through talks and agreements."
Tymoshenko on the offensive
Tymoshenko questioned the right of the Constitutional Court to rule on the conflict, and continued to call for new elections.
"The court has discredited itself with corruption. Neither society nor politicians trust it. We won't recognise its verdict. There is only one judge - the people. We will use every democratic instrument to expel Yanukovych's mafia from Ukraine," she said.
Meanwhile, thousands of Yanukovych's supporters continued demonstrating at the entrances to the Constitutional Court. Tymoshenko also called on her supporters to rally, saying it was time to repeat the actions of the 2004 Orange Revolution.
Speaking last week to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Yanukovych said the situation in Ukraine was critical, warning that the country could face dreadful consequences, including what he called a "dangerous civil conflict and deep economic crisis," if the standoff were not resolved.
PACE criticised Ukraine for what it said was a failure to carry out substantial legal and administrative reforms. The European body said the political crisis in the country was a direct result of inadequate constitutional reforms introduced in 2004, which did not fully define the division of power between the president, government and parliament.
"National constitutions usually contain clear provisions, a package of rules, describing how early elections can be conducted. Ukraine does not have that," Danish liberal deputy Hanne Severinsen said."If early elections are held there should also be legislation to ensure that they are free and fair," she added.
