Reconsideration of the President’s Responsibility before the Islamic Consultative Assembly: Interpellation or Impeachment

The president’s interpellation before the Islamic Consultative Assembly (ICA), set in the Constitutional law of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has been a challenge. The cause of the challenge is the contrast between the 2nd clause of Article 89 of the Constitution and Article 114 of the Constitution. Article 89 says: “In the event that at least one-third of the members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly interpellate the President concerning his responsibilities for leadership of the executive power and managing the executive affairs of the country, the President must present himself to the Assembly within one month after the submission of the interpellation and to give adequate explanations regarding the matters raised. After hearing the statements of the opposing and favoring members and the reply of the President, if two-thirds of the members of the Assembly vote for his incompetency, the vote will be communicated to the Supreme Leader for implementation of Article 110(10)”. Article 114 holds: “The President is elected for a four-year term by the direct vote of the people. His re-election for a successive term is permissible only once”In other words, The main cause of the challenge is the appointment of the president through elections and the lack of any power by the Islamic Consultative Assembly in this regard. The current presumption among the legal society is that interpellation would be applied to an authority that is elected by the ICA. Although the current presumption is relatively true, what has been neglected during these years is that in fact, the interpellation of the president in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is impeachment in a different, unique concept.

In some political systems, the president would be removed by legislative assemblies by means of impeachment.  Comparing the elements of the term impeachment with the elements of interpellation proves the above claim. Hence, comparing the two elements of  their grounds and their procedures are notable.in the draft of the Constitution, a two-stage procedure for the removal of the president was set, but after the enactment of the Constitution, two different one-stage procedures were created. One procedure would be run by the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and the other would be run by the Supreme Court. In fact, two procedures that work together in an impeachment, have been transformed into two independent procedures, both of which leave the final decision-making  to the Supreme Leader.

Conclusion:

The grounds for the president’s removal have been changed from “treason or conspiracy against national security” in the text of the Constitution to “treason and violation of legal duties” and eventually, to “violation of legal duties” and “lack of qualification”. Lack of qualification and being unfit to continue in office are common concepts among the grounds of impeachment in different political systems. lack of qualifications, incapability in doing his executive duties, or ineptitude in executive management in the text of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran are the instances of the general notion of “being unqualified unfit”. Both concepts of “lack of qualification” and “violation of legal duties” are incorporated in the general notion of unfitness in the legal and political literature of the Islamic Republic of Iran and are equal to impeachment in other systems; However, interpellation is often based on political reasons. Since the causes and the grounds of the president’s removal are enumerated in the Constitution, we can conclude that the nature of presidential removal in the Constitution is impeachment, but its title is interpellation.Thus, some clarification and some reforms are required by amending the Constitution. Before any constitutional amendment, the nature of the interpellation of the president and its elements should be explained by the legal society. It may prevent this oversight tool to become a reason to remove the president based on political disagreements and may regulate and restrict the oversight tool to only clear legal grounds. This may, in the future, be the inspiration to possibly omit or add to the grounds for presidential removal in the constitutional amendment. According to the current laws and regulations, the procedure of presidential removal via Islamic Consultative Assembly is almost clear but the procedure of presidential removal through the Supreme Court is unclear. Again, reforming the procedure of presidential removal and merging the two procedures requires an amendment to the Constitution. Another subject that must be considered is the effect of this presidential removal mechanism and whether, irrespective of the removal from office, there are any other effects and sanctions for the president or not. Another sanction for the president’s incompetency would be exclusion and prohibition from holding any public office which is worthy to be debated and considered for the future.