The General Rapporteur of the Constitution and of the Joint Commission for the coordination and
drafting of the new Constitution
Habib KHEDHER
The Constitutive Law relating to the Provisional Organisation of Public Authorities charges the
National Constituent assembly with various duties, of which the most important is to frame a new
constitution for the Republic of Tunisia. The adopted Rules of Procedure to progress this founding
mission are based on a number of involved bodies. These bodies are essentially the Constituent
Committees, the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting and the General Assembly. It also
prescribes an auxiliary level overseeing those bodies, namely the people of Tunisia, in case there is a
need for a referendum.
It is noted that the Assembly's Rules of Procedure did not assign a specific section to either
the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting or the General Rapporteur of the Constitution, as
it did with the other relevant bodies. Instead it stated that the provisions relating to both of the
aforementioned would be widespread during the operations of all other bodies, and when each
phase of the constitutional text will be ratified. It is evident from the widespread provisions that the
role of each of these bodies differs in accordance with the level of progress in their performance of
this main duty, therefore, it would be more accurate to refer to the numerous roles of each body.
This study will focus on the role of both the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting
and the General Rapporteur of the Constitution within the constituent process, which led to the
framing and ratification of the new constitution, prior to seal and coming into force.
Section One: The Role of the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting
First of all it is noted that the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting is an
organisation that is part of the National Constituent Assembly and is comprised of the President of
the National Constituent Assembly as head, the General Rapporteur of the Constitution as deputy to
the head, and two assistants to the General Rapporteur. It also includes the head of and the
rapporteur of each of the six constituent committees, which are: the Committee for Preamble,
General Principles and Amendments of the Constitution, the Committee for Rights and Freedoms,
the Committee for the Legislative and Executive Branches and their Relationship, the Committee on
Judicial, Administrative, Financial and Constitutional Justice, the Committee of Constitutional Bodies
and the Committee of Local Public Associations. Considering that the formulation of the Constituent
Committees and the appointments to the roles of president and rapporteur of each committee was
directly linked to the proportional representation of the parties within the Assembly, the Joint
Commission reflected the diversity of the Assembly. The Commission was approved by the political
blocs in existence at the time of its formation; therefore, it notably includes members from the AlNahda Party, the Congress for the Republic Party, the Unionist Bloc and the Democratic Bloc. This
composition ensures the reflection of most points of view and visions represented in the National
Constituent Assembly within the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting.
Moreover, the programme of consensus adopted by the Commission from its onset was very
important in terms of ensuring that everything issued from it reflected a wider consensus within the
Assembly. The Commission stipulated that its decisions would be made by consensus, which often
1
was almost common, as it did not rely on the use of the majority to overwhelm the minority.
Therefore, it only issued decisions and comments that had not been rejected by any more than two
of its members, namely the percentage of consensus within the Commission was around 85%. This
percentage largely explains the level of consensus that occurred over the final wording of the
constitution.
The fact that the majority of the members of the Commission represented the various
committees that provided the Commission with the opportunity to gain a comprehensive view of the
text of the constitution, whereas each individual committees had to focus on only a part of the
content of the constitution. The role of the Commission focused on: (1) guiding the Constituent
Committees, (2) reviewing the output of each committee, (3) the exercise of some joint duties with
the Bureau of Public Affairs, (4) and finally the wording of the draft constitution.
1. General Guidance to the Constituent Committees:
The Commission was careful from the outset to specify some general guidelines for the
committees in order to guarantee coordinated operations and to ensure that despite the differences
between the committees they still belong to the same of the same Assembly and work on the same
draft constitution. These guidelines includes: (a) the choice to start the process with a white paper,
(b) to oversee the size of the required constitutional text, and (c) to specify and review the work
calendar of each committee.
1.A. Starting with a White Paper:
From the first meeting of the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting, on the 17
February 2012, the Commission held the view that the committees should operate, as far as possible,
in accordance with a unified methodology. On this basis it affirmed 'that the committees shall not
begin their work based on a specific law', which means that a white paper should be the starting
point, in order not to be biased to a certain draft law at the expense of another law. Although this
choice required more time, it guaranteed that the ownership of the text of the constitution belong
only to the National Constituent Assembly and is not affiliated to any other group or any other
project . This alone would guarantee the greater acceptance of the text of the constitution, as it
could be attributed to the entire Assembly and not exclusively to one group. In light of this, the 1959
constitution was dealt with in a way that would dissolve any ties with it. It was treated by the
Constituent Committees as a resource that could be referred to. This avoided any excessive sampling
of the older constitution, which could have compromised the current assignment, as the task of
framing a new constitution is not merely a matter of amending the constitution that was no longer in
effect after the day of the 10th December 2011.
1.B. Choices Relating to the Size of the Constitutional Text:
From the outset there were discussions within the Joint Commission for Coordination and
Drafting in relation to the specifications of the constitutional text and its size, particularly the number
of sections. It was agreed that the aim would be a medium sized constitution, that could be easily
understood by the citizens, and that the number of its sections would be approximately one hundred
and twenty. It was also agreed that it is probably best to avoid going into details whenever the
generalities could be an alternative. Certain issues could be addressed exceptionally in detail only
when they are important because the subject is new to our constitutional heritage, or because they
were seen as important to the general public. Due to the large number of requests to include points
within the constitution and the caution taken to reach consensus, the number of sections increased.
However, the increase in sections does not appear to subvert the original intention.
2
1.C. Regulating and Reviewing the Work Calendar of the Constituent Committees:
Due to the fact that the Provisional Organisation of Public Authorities and the Rules of
Procedure of the Assembly neglected to set punctual deadlines to complete the constituent mission,
the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting constantly worked to guide the Constituent
Committees in this regard, in order to ensure that each completed its duties without delay or haste.
During its first meeting on 17 February 2012, the Commission reached a number of decisions
organising the first phase of the Constituent Committees work. The most important of these are that
that these committees shall work on three consecutive days of the week, namely Monday, Tuesday
and Wednesday. Moreover, during these days they would work without a break from nine o'clock in
the morning until two o'clock in the afternoon. Experts should be heard within the Committees. It
would be possible to hear experts within the general session if the Commission decided upon this.
The first of the Committees' sessions would relate to identifying the main sections, and then the
Commission would meet to review these and coordinate between the different Committees.
Through its successive meetings the Commission undertook to monitor the Constituent
Committees and to prevent the delays that affected the work of some of them. For example, the
reduction of the working hours of the third committees, as it did not adhere to the daily schedule of
operation of the Committees set by the Commission which delayed its work and threatened the
entire constituent process.
Furthermore, the Commission constantly endeavoured to review the calendar for the
constituent process and to adapt it with any alternations or requirements which were not present
from the outset. It also encouraged the Committees to respect the deadlines and come as close as
possible to them, as any Committee neglecting to complete its work would obstruct the progression
to the next phase. In some situations the Commission was forced to deal with Committees
differently, depending on their level of progress. For example, the wording issued in December 2012
was different on the sections of the executive and legislative branches, as the Committee was late in
submitting its work to the Commission, therefore, was late in reviewing the comments made by it.
2. Reviewing the Output of Each Committee:
The Rules of Procedure charged the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting with the
task of reviewing the output of each Committee and granted it the ability to refer this work back to
the concerned Committee, prior to discussing the work in the general session. The Joint
Commission's comments essentially focused on the outputs of the Committees that formed the
wording of August 2012, which the Commission referred back the comments to each of the relevant
Committee. The comments sometimes progressed to the level of a decision when they related to the
coordination of a constitutional article, for example, if a specific article the Committee worked on
actually came within the remit of another Committee. Comments remained at the level of a
suggestion when they related to any content assigned to that specific Committee.
For example, the Commission noticed in relation to the First Committee, that the section
submitted by it relating to freedoms of thought, expression, the freedom of the media and
publishing, as well the right to gather and protest (8.1); and the section relating to the right to belong
to a political party, a trade union or an association (9.1) were directly related to rights and freedoms.
Therefore, the Commission transferred the work on these sections to the Second Committee. It also
noted in relation to the same Committee, that the suggested wording relating to decentralisation
should adhere to the work of the Sixth Committee. Therefore, the Commission struck out the term
"regional" from the approved wording of Section 15.1, which had stated 'Decentralisation is the basis
of regional and local administrative organisation, while preserving the unity of the state'. The
wording would now read 'Decentralisation is the basis of local administrative organisation, while
3
preserving the unity of the state' as this accorded with the approved wording relating to local
authorities in Section One.
The Commission presented suggestions in relation to other issues, but the final decision
remained within the remit of the Committee concerned. For example, it noted in relation to the work
of the Second Committee, on the wording of Section 13.2 which stipulated 'The right of assembly and
peaceful demonstration is guaranteed' that it would be better to amend the wording and make it
more specific as follows, 'The right of assembly and peaceful demonstration is guaranteed and shall
be exercised in accordance with the procedural conditions laid down by law, which shall not affect
the essence of this right'. The Second Committee approved the new wording and it was included in
the work produced for December 2012. However, in another circumstance, the wording suggested
by the Commission was rejected in relation to ownership rights in Section 29.2, which stipulated
'Rights to ownership are guaranteed and shall be exercised within the limits of the law'. The
Commission suggested amending the wording to accommodate the meaning transferred from
another section to read: 'The right to ownership, including intellectual rights, shall be guaranteed and
exercised within the limits of the law'. However, the Committee concerned maintainedit’s December
wording and rejected the Commission's suggestion.
3. The Commission's Duty to Exercise Joint Tasks with the Bureau of Public and civil society
relations:
The Bureau of Public and civil society relation made a commendable contribution to
advancing the mission of the Constituent Assembly. This office, its supervisor and its working team
were key in communicating the Assembly's choice to frame the constitution by opening the process
up to those outside of the Assembly. The Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting cooperated
with the aforementioned Bureau, particularly in relation to (a) the two open days of discussion; and
(b) the national dialogue on the constitution within the relevant agencies.
3.A. The Two Open Days:
The National Constituent Assembly organised two days of open discussion, which took place
on 14 and 15 of September 2012. During these days they received representatives from more than
three hundred associations, from all corners of the country and from abroad. They listened to their
opinions and suggestions, particularly in relation to the first draft wording of the constitution, which
had been released on the 8th of August. This event was organised by the Bureau of Public and Civil
Society Relations in coordination with the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting, which
oversaw every workshop. Subsequently, the Constituent Committees benefited from the suggestions
presented during the two open days when working on amending the second wording of the
constitution, which was published on 14 December 2012.
3.B. The National Dialogue on the Constitution within the Relevant Agencies:
The day after the publication of the second draft constitution on the 14 December 2012; and
relying on the cooperation between the Bureau of Public and Civil Society Relations and the Joint
Commission for Coordination and Drafting, the National Constituent Assembly launched a series of
meetings with the objective of revealing the contents of the constitution to any citizen that wanted
to be involved and express an opinion. Twenty-six meetings were held within the Republic, two
directed to students, and then one held in each Governorate. Moreover, eighteen meetings were
held abroad in both France and Italy. One or more members of the Joint Commission for
Coordination and Drafting oversaw each one of these meetings. The meetings were characterised by
a strong attendance, a high level of discussion and the presentation of various suggestions. The
submissions resulting from these meetings were gathered and placed into classifications by the
4
advisors to the Assembly, in coordination with the General Rapporteur of the Constitution. The heads
of each of the six Constituent Committees received these submissions during an official meeting on
19 March 2013.
4. The Task of Wording the Draft Constitution:
The Commission asked itself a question, which was not self-evident, (a) namely what the text
of the constitution should be called. (b) It also undertook the most important task, which was
preparing the final wording of the draft constitution. (c) It then approved the final wording of the
General Report on the Draft Constitution.
4.A. Naming the Constitution:
No agency had been charged under the Rules of Procedure with the task of determining the
name of the constitution, which was not self-evident. Therefore, the Commission discussed how it
should be named and decided on a traditional and direct title, 'The Draft Constitution of the Republic
of Tunisia'. Upon ratification the name would become 'The Constitution of the Republic of Tunisia',
which is what indeed occurred, as upon ratification the term "draft" was deleted.
4.B. Preparing the Final Wording of the Draft Constitution:
The original wording of Section 104 of the Rules of Procedure stipulated that one of the
duties of the Commission was 'the preparation of the final wording of the draft constitution, in
accordance with the decisions of the general session'. After being amended, the section then
stipulated 'the preparation of the final wording of the draft constitution based on the work of the
Committees and in consultation with the relevant experts.’
The Commission exercised its powers during this phase based on the new section,
particularly as Section 104 used the same term used in Section 65, namely "wording" and replacing
the term "in accordance" with "based on". The mainstay of the draft constitution was based on the
output of the Constituent Committees. The Joint Commission did not alter any of this output, except
where it believed it would improve the text, for example, if articles were not of the standard required
for a constitution, or unnecessary details or repetitions existed, or there was an absence of content
that required correction. The Commission had to intercede to consider and support one view over
another on occasion. However, this was mainly confined to the wording issued by the Committee for
the Legislative and Executive Branches and the Relationship between them, particularly as the head
of that Committee had informed the Commission that the Committee could not reach a resolution on
these points and invited the Commission to take the final decision.
The Commission was required to become involved in the textual arguments which arose in
the latter stages of drafting the constitution, as its involvement addressed the need that arose from
the fact that each Constituent Committee focused on the subject matter they were charged with
addressing, whereas the final text required a comprehensive view that collated all the separate
issues and viewed them as one cohesive text, not just a collection of sections. This task was not given
to any other body than the Joint Commission.
The Commission undertook that any interference in the text submitted to it would not be
made without wide ranging consensus within the Commission itself. This resulted in a draft
constitution widely approved by the Commission and the majority of the Assembly, as the
amendments made by the general session respected the essence of the draft constitution issued on
the 1st June, In fact, it made a few improvements and added some clarification, but otherwise
amended little of the content. For example, in the section on rights and freedoms, the amendments
5
were mainly focused on related issues of improving the wording and collating the regulations in a
unified clause at the end of the section.
4.C. Preparing the General Report regarding the Draft Constitution:
Section 104 charged the Commission with 'preparing the General Report regarding the
Constitution before presenting it to the general session.' The Commission started with the draft
General Report prepared by the General Rapporteur of the Constitution, then made some comments
and suggested amendments to it. The General Rapporteur of the Constitution then worked with
these suggestions before presenting the final draft to the Commission, which was subsequently
approved by it. Whereupon the official wording of the General Report on the Draft Constitution was
filed at the Registration Office on 14 June 2013.
The Report concentrated on how the draft constitution was framed and detailed the various
stages it passed through and those involved, to differing degrees, in its preparation. The General
Report also focused on the issue of the substance of the constitution with regards to the intention
behind some of the amendments made by the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting. For
example, in relation to some of the amendments made to the Preamble, the report stated, 'It is of
great importance that the principles upon which the constitution is founded are made clear. The
Preamble stated that the constitution is based on the teachings of Islam, on the principles of
openness and justice, and on the eminent principles of human rights and values’. The joint
Commission believed that replacing the phrase 'fundamental principles of Islam' with the 'teachings
of Islam' clarified the text. The Commission also believed that describing the 'principles of human
rights and values' as "eminent" would confirm the fact that the constitution is based on noble
principles, which still encompasses the meaning behind the previous wording. That wording required
that the constitution be based on this second principle and be "in harmony with the cultural
characteristics of the Tunisian people" Particularly, when considering the reference that followed
regarding inspiration from cultural capital and reform movements that support the components of
the Arab Islamic identity and the gains of human civilisation.
Section Two: The Role of the General Rapporteur of the Constitution:
The general session of the National Constituent Assembly elected the General Rapporteur of
the Constitution. Two candidates stood for this role and the election process, which took place on 1
February 2012, favoured one candidate over the other. Aside from the General Rapporteur of the
Constitution being the deputy to the head of the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting, he
also undertook some duties relating to the new constitution. These duties were either under direct
assignment by the text of the constitution, or to ensure a comprehensive interpretation of it, or to
address a gap in it. Moreover, the duties of the General Rapporteur of the Constitution altered as the
course of the constituent process progressed.
1. Duties Relating to the Constituent Committees:
The General Rapporteur of the Constitution assumed a number of duties relating to the
Constituent Committees, including (a) receiving external suggestions and directing them to the
relevant party, (b) monitoring the daily work of the Committees and the continued coordination
between them, (c) providing the references or data requested by the Committees, and (d) collating
the output of the committees, then tabulating and presenting it.
1.A. Receiving External Suggestions and Directing them to the Relevant Party:
In accordance with the system put in place by the National Constituent Assembly to open the
process up to those external to it, including citizens, associations, parties and independent experts, it
6
received correspondence on a daily basis relating to the substance of the constitution. Some of these
were suggestions in complete legal wording, while others were just ideas. Some were suggestions
relating to the entire constitution, while others merely referred to one section or a number of
sections relating to one topic. This correspondence was referred to the General Rapporteur of the
Constitution, who reviewed the content and then decided to pass it on to one, or more, or even all of
the Constituent Committees. The correspondence, whether external or internal, was distributed to
the Committees according to its content. During the entire period of the Committees' work, only one
piece of correspondence was excluded from this system. It was a short piece that came from a
foreign association and the General Rapporteur considered the wording to be affected by national
sovereignty. Therefore, after consultation with the President of the Assembly, the decision was taken
not to distribute the letter.
1.B. Monitoring the daily work of the Committees and the Continuous Coordination:
In view of the General Rapporteur of the Constitution receiving a copy of the decisions made
within each Constituent Committee on a daily basis, he was able to follow the progress of each
Committee and the issues being dealt with in their individual remit. To capitalise on this, the General
Rapporteur sought to coordinate between the Constituent Committees working in parallel with one
another, by providing a copy of the guidance adopted in a particular committee to the other
Committee, in order to avoid wasting time and effort. An example of this was when the attention of
the Committee on Constitutional Bodies, which was considering the topic of the Constitutional Court
and working on defining it as a constitutional body, was drawn to the fact that its work overlapped
the definition adopted by the Judicial Committee, which had considered the matter as part of its
remit. Therefore, a duplication of work was avoided.
1.C. Providing the Reference Materials and Data Requested:
Every Constituent Committee had at least two advisors to provide any required documents
or reference materials, the General Rapporteur of the Constitution and a team of advisors working
with him were at the disposal of the Committees whenever a particular document or comparison
text was required, which eased their work.
1.D. Collating the Output of the Committees, then Tabulating and Presenting it:
The General Rapporteur of the Constitution was responsible for the process of collating the
suggested wording of the constitution from the different Constituent Committees and organising it in
accordance with the prescribed format. He then presented it as the summary text issued in August
2012, and the second wording in December 2012. The purpose of these two texts was to
demonstrate the steps taken and the steps yet to be taken, so that public opinion and all those
involved in the constituent process could gain insight into the complete constituent procedure
undertaken by the National Constituent Assembly.
2. Duties Relating to the National Dialogue on the Contents of the Constitution:
The General Rapporteur played a major part in (a) preparing the unified article upon which the
national dialogue on the contents of the constitution would be based and (b) supervising, collating
and tabulating the results of the dialogue.
2.A. Preparing the Unified Article upon which the National Dialogue on the Contents of the
Constitution Would be Based:
When the decision was taken to launch a national dialogue on the contents of the
constitution, it was also suggested that an article be presented in the meetings to ensure there was
7
no deviation, which would allow one viewpoint to dominate all others. Therefore, it was necessary to
work on drafting a principle unified article, which was neutral and brief. Therefore, the General
Rapporteur of the Constitution, in cooperation with the assistant to the President of the Assembly
charged with public and civil society relations, prepared the unified article, which was subsequently
presented at the opening of each meeting of the national dialogue. The unified and neutral wording
of this article averted any problems relating to this preparatory text.
2.B. Supervising, Collating and Tabulating the Results of the Dialogue:
The General Rapporteur of the Constitution supervised the work of a team of advisers to the
National Constituent Assembly, who collated and organised the results of the national dialogue on
the substance of the constitution into two reports. The first covered the suggestions and comments
raised in the meetings held within Tunisia. The second comprised of the results of the meetings held
abroad. He also supervised the collating and organising of the suggestions submitted by the
members of the Assembly, during the discussion in the general session on the work of the
Constituent Committees. Great care was taken throughout to honestly convey all the expressed
points of view. These outcomes were provided to the Constituent Committees for review and to
draw upon during the final stages of their work on the text, so that any amendments could be made
before delivering their work to the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting.
3. Duties Relating to the Joint Commission for Coordination and Drafting:
The General Rapporteur of the Constitution had numerous duties towards the Joint
Commission, including, (a) undertaking the duties of the deputy head of the Commission, (b) to
submit suggestions in relation to any deficiency in the text, (c) working with the most current
wording within the Commission and (d) to ensure that the Commission successfully meets with
experts.
3.A. Deputy Head of the Commission:
The General Rapporteur of the Constitution assumed the related duties as Deputy Head of
the Commission by leading some of its meetings. Although the Head of the Commission was present
for the majority of the meetings, the Deputy oversaw some of them. It was important to secure the
highest level of consensus possible during these meetings, in order to ensure that the constitutional
text would be widely accepted, firstly, in the Assembly, and secondly among the general populous of
Tunisia.
The General Rapporteur also undertook duties relating to the drafting of the memos which
organised the work of the Constituent Committees, such as those that clarified the authority of the
Commission in relation to the Committees, and the ways it should deal with the wording suggested
by the Committees in the August 2012 version. The aim of these memos was to encourage the
Commission to express its opinion before giving approval on the final wording.
3.B. Submitting Suggestions in Relation to Any Deficiency in the Text:
The General Rapporteur worked to remedy any deficiencies or gaps in the text, in order to
realise the most complete and favourable possible version. An example of this was that he
considered the text of the constitution to comprise of a distinct combination of visions, which
appeared for a long time to be incapable of co-existing. Therefore, their co-existence in the text of
the constitution required a method of ensuring that the different sections would not come into
conflict or that one vision would dominate at the expense of the others. The Rapporteur General
suggested that the Joint Commission add a section in the concluding provisions of the constitution,
which stated that it shall remain a concordant unit. The Commission approved this suggestion and it
8
appeared for the first time in the draft of 22 April 2013. The wording then developed until the final
wording was settled upon in Section 146 of the constitution.
His response to the deficiency in the transitional provisions is yet another example. The
Assembly's Rules of Procedure while defining a vision of the main principles of the constitution
neglected the transitional provisions. Perhaps this was due to the fact that transitional provisions are
usually viewed as temporary, and are struck out once their objective has been met. Subsequently,
the drafters of the Rules of Procedure did not address the need for such a section and no other body
noticed this deficiency at the time. It is also of note that with the exception of one idea presented to
the Assembly, which contained scant provisions on transition, all other suggestions submitted to the
Assembly by experts, parties and associations were lacking in this area. When the draft constitution
was complete, this deficiency became obvious; therefore the General Rapporteur drew the attention
of the Joint Commission to the issue on more than one occasion. However, no efforts were made by
any group within or outside of the Assembly to remedy this deficiency. Therefore, the Rapporteur
General volunteered to submit the first draft provisions on transition, which were prepared in
conjunction with his second deputy and were discussed within the Commission. The Commission
added a number of amendments until the wording that appeared in the conclusion to the draft
constitution issued in June 2013 was reached.
3.C. Current Wording within the Commission:
The General Rapporteur dealt with the suggestions and views of the members of the Joint
Commission by submitting amendments after each discussion, until the wording that would be
approved by the Commission was finally reached. Every draft was read to the members of the
Commission and if any objections were expressed, the wording was not reviewed or any attempt
made to convince the person expressing the objection, instead the objection was either rejected or a
consensus was secured to override it. Thus, the wording would be fixed on.
During the first phase of this process, the method of merely reading out the wording was
used, and then as the process progressed and the final wording of the draft constitution was being
settled on, the most current wording was displayed on a screen. Therefore, members could listen to
the wording being read out while reading it, which increased the level of approval of the text based
on the full awareness of the members.
3.D The General Rapporteur and Meetings with Experts:
The Commission arranged a series of meetings with experts. The role of the General
Rapporteur during these meetings was to read out the text of the constitution section by section,
and to contextualise how the wording was decided upon when required. This provided the experts
with a clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the drafting process prior to them
presenting their opinions and suggestions.
4. Duties Relating to the Consensus Committee, the Bloc Leaders and Association Representatives:
The General Rapporteur of the Constitution was also (a) a member of the Consensus
Committee, and (b) attended the meetings of the bloc leaders and association representatives that
related to the constitution.
4.A. The General Rapporteur and the Consensus Committee:
The National Constituent Assembly formed the Consensus Committee directly after the Joint
Commission for Coordination and Drafting completed its work on finalising the General Report on the
Draft Constitution. The idea behind forming this Committee was the representation of all viewpoints
9
within the Assembly, even those that did not reach the level of a bloc. The General Rapporteur was a
member of this Committee in his capacity as Rapporteur.
The role of the General Rapporteur was to contribute to reaching a consensus on any
possible improvements to the draft constitution. Sometimes the legal precision or soundness of the
text was sacrificed to reach political consensus. Therefore, one of the General Rapporteur's duties
was to draw the Committee's attention to any threat or unforeseen side effects posed by the
wording reached through consensus to the national legal system. An example of this was the section
relating to the rights of ownership. During one of the consensus phases it was decided to subject this
section to the same general regulations that related to rights and freedoms. The General Rapporteur
warned insistently that such a step would obstruct future development within the country, as the
wording that was almost approved did not provide the state with a mechanism for seizure in the
public interest. After a long period of indecision, the final wording which protected the
characteristics of the right of ownership was agreed.
4.B. The General Rapporteur and Meetings with the Leaders of the Blocs and Association
Representatives:
The Consensus Committee was formed to address a fixed number of issues and its work was
complete once it had achieved all the issues on its work list. The Assembly then took a step not
mandated in the Rules of Procedure, namely it held meetings of the leaders of the blocs and
association representatives to consider some important points or problems raised during the general
sessions. The General Rapporteur attended and participated in these meetings, providing his opinion
and highlighting the ramifications of every option discussed on the rest of the constitution.
5. Duties Relating to the General Sessions:
The General Rapporteur was charged with the following duties: (a) presenting the General
Report on the Draft Constitution, (b) dealing with the general debate on the draft constitution, (c)
organising the interventions relating to the substance of the constitution, (d) dealing with the debate
on the original text and amendments suggested, (e) requesting a review of sections already
considered to ensure their harmony with the whole constitutional text and (f) reciting the draft
constitution for approval as a whole.
5.A. Presenting the General Report:
The first session of July 2013 was designated for the recitation out of the General Report on
the Draft Constitution. The session was opened by the President of the Assembly in the attendance
of a number of guests . The General Rapporteur was due to make a speech when a disturbance in the
hall occurred, which troubled the guests, and the President decided to call the session into recess.
The session resumed on the afternoon of the same day, and the General Rapporteur read out the
General Report amidst the disturbance and clamour caused by some members of the Assembly.
However, the insistence to continue the recitation in that moment was a demonstration of the
determination to go ahead with the transitional process of the country and a decision to prevent
chaos and surrender to the void. . At the end, the voice of reason and the will to build has overcome
on the desires of confusion and disruption. And the assistant to the General Rapporteur contributed
to the recitation of the report.
5.B. Dealing with the General Debate on the Draft Constitution:
Once the reading of the general report on the Draft Constitution had been completed, a
series of meetings were held to facilitate a general debate on the draft constitution. The General
Rapporteur dealt with all the questions and comments made by Assembly members. His
10
interventions were sometimes made to clarify the process of development of a specific wording, or
to explain the rationale behind each amendments made by the Joint Commission for Coordination
and Drafting, or to draw attention to the relationship between the different contents of the
constitution
5.C. Organising the Presentations Relating to the Substance of the Constitution:
To ensure a precise organisation of the process of voting on the constitution, the Rules of
Procedure regulated in details the interventions , their duration, and the submission of requests in
this regard. It also charged the General Rapporteur and his assistants to make the necessary
arrangements such as classifying the names or making a draw in order to know the names of
intervenient in each of the sessions dedicated to voting on the constitutional contents.
5.D. Dealing with the Discussion of the Original Provisions and Suggested Amendments:
The General Rapporteur was responsible for preserving the harmony of the articles of the
constitution, the clarity of its provisions and avoiding any inconsistencies with the general vision that
prescribed these provisions. The regulations regarding the ratification of the contents of the
constitution were clear, in that they did not provide for any speeches on the subject matter of the
constitution. Rather they referred to presentations against and in defence of the wording of the
constitution. Thereafter, the General Rapporteur would take the floor of the Assembly, if a request
had been made to hear his comments, before the procedure would finally pass on to the vote. The
role of making comments was very important, as it could, for example, alert the general session to
the fact that the subject matter about to be voted on was linked to provisions previously voted on, or
that it has an effect on the legal system in a way that the speaker may not be aware of, or that the
wording is unsound, or that the contents of the section are not of a constitutional standard. Such
comments were particularly focused on suggestions for amendments or for the insertion of
additional sections.
5.E. To Request a Review of Sections Already Considered Ensuring their Cohesion with the Whole
Constitutional Text:
This power was granted to the General Rapporteur of the Constitution under Section 93 of
the Rules of Procedure pertaining to the National Constituent Assembly. However, the General
Rapporteur mostly preferred instead not to exercise this power, and chose to reach a consensus
between the leaders of the blocs and association representatives. He did exercise this power in
certain circumstances to ensure the consistency of terminology in the various sections of the
constitution. Accordingly, he requested that there be another vote on the section relating to the
right to strike and its related exceptions. The term "military establishment" was originally used in this
section, and based on a request by the General Rapporteur this was amended to the "national army"
in accordance with the use of this term elsewhere in the constitution.
5.F. Reading out the Draft Constitution towards its Final Approval:
After all the effort exerted by the different organisations involved in the constituent process
and upon the approval of all the sections of the draft, the time came to reward this effort with the
conclusion of the drafting period and realize the country had avoided some serious tremors, which
came close to destroying the entire constituent process. At this stage, the General Rapporteur was
charged with reading the draft constitution, with the aid of his assistant, prior to voting on the entire
document. Upon the completion of the reading, the Assembly members were asked to vote and 200
among 216 members approved it and Tunisia had a new Constitution.
11
12