That few would mourn the removal of Nicolás Maduro is politically understandable, given the scale of economic collapse, repression, and democratic erosion under his rule. However, public relief or moral satisfaction does not resolve the more difficult question of legality.
In constitutional and international law, the legitimacy of a leader’s removal does not depend on how unpopular he has become, but on how he is removed. Even an autocratic or deeply discredited president is entitled to removal only through procedures recognised by the constitution of the state such as impeachment, resignation, incapacity duly declared, or elections conducted in accordance with the law.
Where removal occurs through force, external intervention, or extra-constitutional means, it raises serious legal concerns, regardless of the moral case against the incumbent. International law, particularly the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, is wary of endorsing regime change simply because a government is oppressive or ineffective.
The danger of ignoring legality because the target is unpopular is that it creates a precedent: today it is a dictator, tomorrow it may be a legitimately elected but inconvenient government. The rule of law is tested most severely not when it protects the virtuous, but when it restrains action against the discredited.
In short, while Maduro’s removal might satisfy political or humanitarian instincts, the enduring question remains whether it was achieved in a manner consistent with Venezuela’s constitutional framework and international legal norms. Popular approval cannot substitute for legal validity.
Rt. Hon Johnson Egwakhide Oghuma Former Member Federal House of Representative & A Public Affairs Analyst
