Following the general election held on February 12, newly elected representatives of the ruling party announced they would not take oath as members of the Constitutional Reform Council. This decision sparked a national debate over the legality of the council, which had been established under the July Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order of 2025. Critics argue that the 1972 Constitution does not grant the president authority to issue such an order and that, without a separate election, parliament members cannot serve on the council.

The article explains that the July political uprising represented a constitutional moment when citizens directly asserted their sovereign power to reshape the state. It argues that the council’s legitimacy stems from this popular mandate, not merely from written constitutional provisions. The July Charter sought fundamental restructuring of state principles and institutions, changes that could not be sustained through ordinary amendment procedures due to the Supreme Court’s basic structure doctrine.

The author concludes that the council’s legitimacy arises from dual mandates—both the general election and the referendum approving the reform process—reflecting the people’s sovereign will to redefine the constitutional order.