The Supreme Court of Justice of Panama on Friday dismissed a constitutional challenge against the candidacy of prominent presidential candidate José Raúl Mulino, resolving a source of uncertainty just two days before the May 5 election.

In a press release, the court informed that it found the Second Resolutive Point of Plenary Agreement 11-1 of March 4, 2024, to be constitutional by a majority of 8 votes out of 9. The agreement was issued by the Panamanian Electoral Tribunal and ordered the incorporation of Mulino as a candidate on the electoral ballots. In the resolution, the Electoral Tribunal disqualified former president Ricardo Martinelli as a presidential candidate for having been convicted of money laundering and automatically decided that Mulino, the vice presidential candidate, would assume the presidential candidacy in his place.

The lawsuit mainly questioned the fact that Mulino’s candidacy for president was not accompanied by a vice-presidential candidacy and that the automatic replacement of Mulino for Martinelli did not follow the parameters established in the electoral regulations because internal elections had not been held.

In this regard, the court’s judgment states that the Electoral Tribunal erred in issuing the challenged Plenary Agreement. The court found that the tribunal violated the right to free suffrage by preventing party members from internally choosing who would represent them in the elections, which also led to the failure to select a candidate slate containing a vice president. For the court, this amounted to “improper interference by the Electoral Tribunal in the suffrage and self-government of these associations with political purposes.” However, since this was a “difficult case,” nullifying the act issued was not appropriate, as it would cause greater harm by completely annulling the opportunity for them to participate in the country’s elections. Thus, the court decided to declare the questioned resolutive point constitutional and thereby confirm the eligibility of Mulino’s candidacy.

In a press conference, the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, accompanied by the other justices, explained how the court came to its decision: 

What has moved this Constitutional Court at the historical moment we find ourselves in is to defend our homeland and democracy; as well as institutionalism, social peace, the right to choose and be chosen, and political pluralism; without forgetting the important role played by political parties in strengthening democracy. And what we have considered most important: the sovereign will of the Panamanian people.

While the issuance of the judgment quelled uncertainty regarding Mulino’s candidacy two days before the elections in the country, the decision of the court has been subject to criticism in recent hours with questions about the legality of the judgment and the timeliness of its issuance.