CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES FOR THE PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN MOZAMBIQUE: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH

Résumé

This article, entitled “Constitutional Guarantees for the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Mozambique: A Comparative Perspective”, falls within the domain of Constitutional Law and examines the Mozambican system of constitutional guarantees in light of the national constitutional framework, with occasional reference to comparative law. The choice of theme stems from ongoing academic and socio-political debates concerning the effectiveness of constitutional guarantees in protecting citizens’ fundamental rights in Mozambique. In this context, the study seeks to answer the following central question: Do the constitutional guarantees established in the Mozambican legal order ensure effective access to constitutional justice? To this end, the general objective is to analyse the system of constitutional guarantees for the protection of fundamental rights, fostering a critical reflection on the current state of access to constitutional justice and identifying possible solutions for improving the system of constitutional review. The specific objectives are: (i) to examine the constitutional guarantees that protect fundamental rights; (ii) to conduct a comparative study with other constitutional systems; and (iii) to assess the level of protection afforded by Mozambique’s current model of constitutional review. The research is classified as basic, with a qualitative approach, explanatory purposes, and based on bibliographical and documentary procedures. Methodologically, the study relies on the deductive, legal, systematic, and hermeneutic methods. The findings indicate that Mozambique does not possess a comprehensive catalogue of guarantees for the protection of fundamental rights. Access to constitutional justice remains limited, since only a group of two thousand citizens may request abstract review of constitutionality, in accordance with paragraph (g) of article 245(2) of the Constitution. The study also identifies significant weaknesses in the mechanisms for the protection of fundamental rights, particularly the absence of instruments such as the writ of injunction and constitutional amparo, which could substantially strengthen citizens’ ability to defend their rights. The lack of these mechanisms means that citizens have no direct means to bring serious violations of their fundamental rights before the Constitutional Council.