Mr. Evariste NGAMANA, the Minister of State, Minister of Communication, and Government Spokesperson, is accused of defying a Constitutional Council decision regarding Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ's reintegration. This accusation centers on an alleged refusal by the Minister to comply with a binding directive from the nation's highest constitutional body. The Constitutional Council made its decision, identified as n°014/CC 25, on 14 September 2025, ruling unequivocally that Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ should not be subjected to reintegration formalities. This directive aimed to facilitate Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ's return to his legislative duties without additional administrative burdens, a stance that Minister NGAMANA is now alleged to have contravened. The controversy notes a potential conflict between executive authority and judicial pronouncements, drawing significant attention to the adherence to constitutional principles within the government.
Minister's Alleged Overreach
Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ, who serves prominently as the President of URCA and was re-elected Deputy of Bocaranga 1, is at the very heart of this escalating dispute. Despite the clear ruling from the Constitutional Council, Minister Evariste NGAMANA reportedly sought to impose his legal authority concerning the reintegration and passport documentation for Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ. This action by the Minister occurred despite the Constitutional Council's ruling explicitly stating that reintegration formalities should not apply to Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ. The Minister's involvement extended to holding a press conference, which observers described as 'ad hominem' due to its perceived personal attacks and specific focus on Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ rather than broader policy matters. These developments have drawn considerable scrutiny regarding the Minister's adherence to the Constitutional Council's decision, raising questions about the separation of powers and the respect for judicial independence. The alleged attempt to exert executive control over a matter already decided by the Constitutional Council has fueled concerns among political commentators and the public alike.
Constitutional Council's Ruling
The Constitutional Council's ruling, specifically identified as decision n°014/CC 25, meticulously addressed the legal standing of Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ. This particular decision outlined in no uncertain terms that no administrative act or decree had been established to confirm the loss of Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ's nationality. The council's determination thus clarified his status, indicating that his citizenship had not been officially revoked through any formal governmental action, thereby affirming his rights as a citizen. This ruling formed the fundamental basis for the council's directive regarding his reintegration, asserting that he should not be subjected to additional formalities that would typically apply to individuals whose citizenship or status had been previously questioned or revoked. The decision's explicit mention of the lack of administrative documentation regarding his nationality shows the Constitutional Council's firm position on the matter, leaving little room for interpretation regarding Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ's legal status and rights. The clarity of this ruling was intended to prevent any further administrative hurdles for the re-elected Deputy.
Broader Political Accusations
Beyond the immediate dispute concerning Mr. DOLOGUÉLÉ, the article includes references to "Touadéra and his mafia clan," suggesting broader accusations of corruption, improper influence, and potentially illicit activities within the highest echelons of power. These allegations hint at a systemic issue beyond individual ministerial actions. Additionally, the article mentions "Touadéra" in connection with other serious claims, specifically that artificial intelligence (AI) and mobile operators are allegedly being used to track Central Africans through their SIM cards. These claims imply a wider pattern of concern regarding governance, civil liberties, and the potential misuse of technology for surveillance within the country. Such accusations, if substantiated, would point to significant challenges to democratic norms and individual freedoms, extending the scope of public concern far beyond the procedural reintegration of a single deputy. The inclusion of these broader allegations suggests a climate of distrust and scrutiny directed at the current administration.