Venezuelan legal expert Olga Alvarez. Photo: Zoe Alexandra/file photo.
Caracas (OrinocoTribune.com)—Venezuelan constitutional lawyer and electoral expert Olga Álvarez clarified that there is no “absolute absence” of President Nicolás Maduro, as the US aggression of January 3 falls entirely outside the preconditions defined by the national Constitution.
Álvarez shared these remarks during an interview on the program A Pulso, broadcast Friday night on the state-owned channel Venezolana de Televisión (VTV).
According to Álvarez, the argument of an alleged absolute absence is an ill-intentioned interpretation that contradicts the Venezuelan constitutional framework. She explained that the constituents never considered the possibility of a head of state being kidnapped, as such an act violates centuries of established international law regarding the immunity of sitting heads of state.
Defense of foreign assets
The legal expert emphasized that Venezuela is now in a position to begin the defense of its foreign assets, which were stolen by far-right politicians during the failed 2019 US-led regime change operation involving Juan Guaidó.
These assets are estimated to be worth at least US$30 billion. They include, among others:
• CITGO Petroleum Corporation: A US-based subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).
• Gold reserves: Two tonnes of gold illegally seized by the Bank of England.
• Liquid assets: Frozen funds in international banks, including US$5 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDR) from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Álvarez stated that individuals within the nation who usurped management functions over these foreign assets should be prosecuted under the Organic Law of the Liberator Simón Bolívar against the Imperialist Blockade.
Constitutional framework and the Jan 3 aggression
The former Supreme Court Justice recalled that Venezuela’s far-right sectors, who are now attempting to manipulate the legal narrative, were the same ones who called for sanctions and foreign intervention. She argued that these actions created the conditions for the US imperialist attack on January 3, which resulted in the kidnapping of President Maduro and the assassination of more than 100 people.
Regarding the debate over “absolute absence,” Álvarez noted that the specific circumstances of the current crisis do not fit any of the criteria established in the law. According to Article 233 of the 1999 Constitution, an absolute absence requiring a new election is only triggered by:
• Death.
• Resignation.
• Dismissal by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ).
• Permanent physical or mental incapacity certified by a medical board and approved by the National Assembly.
• Official declaration of abandonment of the post.
• A recall referendum.
Álvarez concluded that since the kidnapping of a president by a foreign power is an unprecedented criminal act not covered by these categories, the far-right’s attempts to declare an absence lack any legal basis and fail to protect the interests of the Venezuelan people.
Meanwhile, the legal expert highlighted that the January 3 TSJ ruling clearly stipulates that the institution will in due time issue a ruling about the interpretation of the constitutional articles impacted by the US imperialist actions.
Special for Orinoco Tribune by staff
OT/JRE/JB
