I have to understand that the members of the assembly who decided to politically impeach President Guillermo Lasso, censor him and remove him, relied on art. 129 of the Constitution of the Republic, which says:

“The National Assembly may impeach the president or vice president of the Republic, at the request of at least one third of its members, in the following cases:

1. For criminal offenses against state security.

2. For criminal acts of extortion, accepting bribes, embezzlement or illicit enrichment.

3. For crimes of genocide, torture, forced disappearance of persons, kidnapping or murder for political reasons or reasons of conscience.

A decision of the Constitutional Court on admissibility will be required to initiate the political process, but a prior ‘criminal prosecution’ will not be required.

Correístas and Social Christians will rely on eleven tests and twelve testimonies to push for the removal of President Guillermo Lasso

The dispute over the evidence presented in the political trial of President Guillermo Lasso, accused of alleged embezzlement in the transportation of hydrocarbons

Within seventy-two hours, upon completion of the procedure established by law, the National Assembly will issue a reasoned decision based on the exculpatory evidence presented by the President of the Republic.

Censorship and dismissal will require two-thirds of the votes of members of the National Assembly. If indications of criminal liability are produced from the censorship, arrangements will be made for the matter to be brought before the competent judge or magistrate.

Before proceeding, it should be noted that the following details stand out in the previous constitutional text: a) a clear allusion to three specifically mentioned “crimes”, which could be attributed to the President; ib) That “political persecution” is one thing, and “criminal prosecution” is quite another, which can only be carried out by the appropriate competent judges.

The defense of President Guillermo Lasso prepared a request to the Constitutional Court for the control and monitoring of the procedure applied by the National Assembly in the political process

With all of the above, it seems that it is very necessary to ask yourself the following questions: 1. What if “providing evidence of criminal liability” is missing from the last paragraph of the transcribed constitutional provision? Because, if there was no such “performance” of “indications of criminal responsibility”, there would be no “crime” either; 2. And if the above had happened (without such indications or derivatives), for what reason would the president be “censured” according to that same paragraph? On what basis would the President of the Republic be politically impeached? Would he have to return him to the position of president?; 3. What if, having “indications of criminal responsibility”, according to the criteria of the parliamentarian, the criminal judge does not find such indications when resolving the case and declares the former president innocent (apart from the “defamation” that would then be generated in the Assembly or outside it)?

The entire population of Ecuador will witness what is happening in the hall of the National Assembly during the impeachment trial of President Guillermo Lasso. Legislators are expected to act in accordance with the provisions of the law, regardless of their political or party interests. The state must have other priorities than the political conflict. (OR)