The nationality controversy involving Anicet Georges Dologuélé has intensified following recent statements by Fidèle Gouandjika and Évariste Ngamana. The dispute has escalated significantly, drawing attention to the differing interpretations of legal precedent and constitutional authority. Évariste Ngamana, referred to as 'le grand sorcier de Carnot, le faux diplômé', asserted that Dologuélé must formally request reintegration to the President in accordance with the Nationality Code. This assertion forms a core part of the government's position on the matter. However, the Constitutional Council, in its decision n°14/CC/25 issued on November 14, 2025, determined that no decree had ever formally established Dologuélé's loss of Central African nationality, thereby challenging the premise of the government's demands.
Government's Nationality Claims
Fidèle Gouandjika, an advisor to President Touadéra, stated that Anicet Georges Dologuélé should acknowledge the president's victory and formally request reintegration into Central African nationality. Gouandjika's remarks indicated a pathway for Dologuélé to resolve questions surrounding his national status, framing the issue as a matter of administrative procedure and political recognition. Separately, Évariste Ngamana asserted that if Dologuélé fails to make this request for reintegration, he would lack the necessary nationality to continue serving as a Member of Parliament. Ngamana's claim directly linked Dologuélé's parliamentary standing to the fulfillment of this specific administrative process, suggesting severe consequences for non-compliance. These statements from presidential allies outline the government's position on Dologuélé's status, emphasizing the need for a formal application despite the Constitutional Council's recent ruling. The government's stance, as articulated by Ngamana, explicitly connects the ongoing nationality issue to the validity of Dologuélé's mandate as a Member of Parliament, implying that his legislative role is contingent upon this administrative action.
Constitutional Council's Prior Ruling
Crépin Mboli-Goumba has contested the interpretation that Anicet Georges Dologuélé must request reintegration, emphasizing that it is first necessary to establish whether Dologuélé legally lost his Central African nationality. Mboli-Goumba's argument notes a fundamental disagreement regarding the legal prerequisites for such a request. The question of Dologuélé's nationality had previously been examined by the Constitutional Council during the litigation surrounding the 2025 presidential election. At that time, the Constitutional Council rejected a challenge to Dologuélé's candidacy, specifically stating that he could not be subjected to reintegration formalities under the conditions invoked. This rejection was based on a thorough assessment of the legal framework. In its decision n°14/CC/25 of November 14, 2025, the Constitutional Council found that no decree had formally established Dologuélé's loss of Central African nationality, a critical detail that underpins its ruling. The Council considered that the voluntary acquisition of foreign nationality did not automatically result in the loss of Central African nationality in this particular case, thus providing a specific legal interpretation for Dologuélé's situation. This ruling from the Constitutional Council provided a significant precedent regarding Dologuélé's status. However, an earlier decision on October 16, 2025, by the Tribunal de grande instance of Bangui had annulled Dologuélé's certificate of nationality, creating a conflicting legal precedent that further complicates the ongoing debate. The Constitutional Council's subsequent ruling in the presidential election litigation appears to have superseded this earlier annulment in its assessment of Dologuélé's national status, affirming its higher authority in constitutional matters.
Legal Basis and Implications
The government's stance, as articulated by Évariste Ngamana, directly links the ongoing nationality issue to the validity of Anicet Georges Dologuélé's mandate as a Member of Parliament. This position suggests that without a formal request for reintegration, Dologuélé's parliamentary status could be jeopardized, potentially leading to his removal from office. Crépin Mboli-Goumba, however, has questioned the legal basis for such an action, asking how an administrative authority could now deem Dologuélé to have lost his nationality, especially after the Constitutional Council has already ruled on the matter. Mboli-Goumba's query shows a potential conflict between administrative directives and the definitive pronouncements of the highest constitutional body.
Mboli-Goumba's query notes a potential conflict with the established legal framework. Article 147 of the 2023 Constitution explicitly addresses the authority of the Constitutional Council's decisions. The article states, "Les décisions du Conseil constitutionnel ne sont susceptibles d’aucun recours et qu’elles s’imposent aux pouvoirs publics ainsi qu’aux autorités administratives, militaires et juridictionnelles." This provision establishes that the Constitutional Council's rulings are final, cannot be appealed, and are binding on all public authorities, including administrative, military, and judicial bodies. The binding nature of these decisions effectively means that the Council's determination regarding Dologuélé's nationality should be considered definitive by all government entities, including those making demands for reintegration. This constitutional provision raises significant questions about the legality of the government's continued insistence on a reintegration request, given the Constitutional Council's clear and binding decision.
