Constitutional experts reject the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding Maduro's "absence."

Constitutional Courtesy UCV A group of prominent Venezuelan law professors and constitutional experts, many affiliated with the Central University of Venezuela (UCV), rejected this Tuesday the interpretation made by the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) regarding the legal situation of Nicolás Maduro following his arrest on January 3, 2026, in the United States. The experts, in a press conference held at the headquarters of the Federation of University Centers of the UCV, warned that the Constitutional Chamber of the TSJ "distorts the Constitution instead of interpreting it" by classifying the events as a "forced absence" and appointing the executive vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, as acting president for a maximum period of 180 days. "A Creole invention," lawyer and professor Tulio Álvarez, one of the most recognized constitutional experts in the country, called the TSJ's decision. He was the most emphatic during the experts' statement. "As usual, the Constitutional Chamber has distorted the Constitution instead of being its interpreter. What happened on January 3 can be considered as an abandonment of office or a manifest impossibility of exercising it. From the facts, rather than from a strict legal formalism, this situation does not fit either as a temporary absence or as an absolute absence as provided for in articles 233 and 234," he explained. Álvarez added that, if it were a temporary absence (article 234), the period would be 90 days, extendable by another 90, that is, until July 3, 2026. Once that period has elapsed, it would be mandatory to declare the absolute absence and call for presidential elections within 30 days. "Elections should be held this year," the academic asserted, although he warned that the TSJ's interpretation seems designed precisely to prevent it and prolong the control of power. Other voices Since January, figures such as the dean of the Faculty of Political and Legal Sciences of the UCV, Juan Carlos Apitz, and professor Nelson Chitty La Roche, have pointed out the risks of creating an "indefinite transition" that, in practice, would be equivalent to a continuation of Chavismo without democratic renewal. Apitz acknowledged that the arrest of a president in office is not literally provided for in the Magna Carta, but warned that extending a caretaker government indefinitely generates legal instability, discourages investment, and deepens the legitimacy crisis. Chitty La Roche emphasized that, once the 180-day period has been exhausted, "it will be necessary to decide whether to declare the absolute absence and call for elections." The experts agreed that the next three months will be decisive. If, after the maximum period of 180 days, the TSJ does not declare the absolute absence, it would consolidate, in their opinion, a breach of the constitutional order that will only deepen the political and economic crisis of the country. During the event, both the professors of the Constitutional Law Chair and the students of the UCV reiterated their support for lawyer Nelson Chitty La Roche as a candidate for Attorney General of the Republic, within the framework of the process opened by the National Assembly after the resignation of Tarek William Saab. The Constitutional Chair and the Federation of University Centers also expressed their support for the jurist.