[ { "case_id": "IMPEACH-DRC-TSHISEKEDI-HTF-001", "title": "RDC / Tshisekedi — haute trahison fonctionnelle et rupture du devoir de protection", "country": "RDC", "case_type": "named_constitutional_accountability_inquiry", "risk_level": "critical", "evidence_state": "working_dossier_evidence_to_authenticate", "visibility": "public_summary_only", "status": "evidence_gated", "summary": "Examine si la convergence entre légitimité électorale contestée, abandon biologique/INRB, effondrement judiciaire, détention sans jugement, répression, accords stratégiques, ressources, guerre, probité et capture institutionnelle peut justifier une procédure constitutionnelle ou parlementaire.", "legal_theory": "Lorsque les fonctions vitales non délégables de l’État sont abandonnées, externalisées, subordonnées ou utilisées pour la conservation du pouvoir, l’incompétence répétée ne suffit plus comme défense: elle devient risque constitutionnel et peut fonder une haute trahison fonctionnelle à instruire.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 95, "security_compromised": 90, "safety_compromised": 88, "health_compromised": 95, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 92, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 82, "evidence_strength": 55, "right_of_reply_status": 10 }, "required_sources": [ "dossier constitutionnel complet", "texte constitutionnel et jurisprudence", "budgets et audits", "accords stratégiques/annexes", "dossiers INRB/santé biologique", "rapports justice/prisons/droits humains", "réponses officielles" ], "flags": [ "named public-interest inquiry", "not final legal finding", "requires lawyer review", "source protection required" ], "public_note": "Alerte constitutionnelle à instruire; pas condamnation sans procédure." }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-KENYA-RUTO-STRATEGIC-SUBORDINATION-001", "title": "Kenya / Ruto — haute trahison potentielle par subordination stratégique, immunité étrangère et mise en risque de citoyens", "country": "Kenya", "case_type": "named_constitutional_security_inquiry", "risk_level": "critical", "evidence_state": "framework_plus_source_collection_required", "visibility": "public_summary_only", "status": "evidence_gated", "summary": "Teste si des accords de sécurité, santé, finance ou diplomatie ont accordé une priorité ou une immunité extérieure sans réciprocité matérielle, contrôle parlementaire suffisant, recours pour victimes ou protection sanitaire/civile.", "legal_theory": "Un dirigeant peut engager une responsabilité constitutionnelle si des accords exposent les citoyens à des risques prévisibles tout en protégeant mieux la mission étrangère que la population nationale.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 88, "security_compromised": 92, "safety_compromised": 90, "health_compromised": 78, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 74, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 70, "evidence_strength": 35, "right_of_reply_status": 0 }, "required_sources": [ "accords de sécurité/militaires/santé", "clauses d’immunité et juridiction", "décisions judiciaires", "débats parlementaires", "plaintes et mécanismes de recours", "avis indépendants", "réponses officielles" ], "flags": [ "template for Kenyan legal validation", "not final legal finding", "right of reply mandatory" ], "public_note": "Dossier à compléter par textes d’accords, jurisprudence et validation locale." }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-US-KENYA-FOREIGN-FOOTPRINT-001", "title": "États-Unis / Kenya — révision constitutionnelle des empreintes militaires/sécuritaires et du recours effectif", "country": "Kenya / United States", "case_type": "foreign_footprint_sovereignty_case", "risk_level": "critical", "evidence_state": "framework_template_to_source", "visibility": "public_summary_only", "status": "evidence_gated", "summary": "Évalue si une empreinte militaire, contractuelle, sanitaire ou logistique étrangère crée immunité, absence de réparation, inspection faible des contractants, risque de protection communautaire ou dépendance opérationnelle.", "legal_theory": "Une architecture qui protège la mission mais laisse les citoyens sans recours effectif crée une défaillance prévisible de protection; un État qui l’accepte malgré les signaux connus expose sa population à un risque évitable.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 82, "security_compromised": 90, "safety_compromised": 88, "health_compromised": 62, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 65, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 60, "evidence_strength": 30, "right_of_reply_status": 0 }, "required_sources": [ "SOFA/accords de défense", "clauses d’immunité/juridiction", "registres incidents/plaintes", "contrats et sous-traitants", "mécanismes survivants/victimes", "audits parlementaires", "réponses officielles" ], "flags": [ "foreign footprint review", "source protection required", "not legal guilt" ], "public_note": "La page mesure le risque institutionnel et les remèdes nécessaires, pas une culpabilité automatique." }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-FRAMEWORK-001", "case_type": "framework_template", "country": "Pan-African framework", "evidence_state": "framework_template", "flags": [ "template only", "requires jurisdiction-specific constitutional mapping" ], "legal_theory": "A leader or official may trigger constitutional accountability when decisions knowingly or recklessly transfer sovereign control, expose the population to grave preventable harm, misallocate public resources away from national protection, invite unaccountable armed capacity, or obstruct lawful review.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 0, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 0, "evidence_strength": 0, "health_compromised": 0, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 0, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 0, "security_compromised": 0 }, "public_note": "This is a method, not a finding against a named person.", "required_sources": [ "constitutional provisions and applicable law", "budget allocations, procurement records and audit reports", "official communications, decrees, treaties, MOUs or cooperation clauses", "parliamentary questions, hearings, committee reports or court filings", "public statements and verified transcripts", "public-health, biosafety, civilian-protection or security incident chronology", "beneficiary/control analysis: who receives priority, data, money, custody, immunity or operational control", "right-of-reply or official response record", "independent expert review and redaction/source-protection review" ], "risk_level": "critical", "status": "published", "summary": "A reproducible test for determining when public action or omission may compromise constitutional duty, sovereign capability or population protection severely enough to justify an impeachment, high-treason or constitutional accountability inquiry.", "title": "Capability-compromise test for impeachment / high-treason inquiry", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-DRC-BIOBANK-INRB-US-PRIORITY-001", "case_type": "public_health_sovereignty_case", "country": "DRC", "evidence_state": "starter_case", "flags": [ "starter profile", "requires primary documents", "avoid asserting misallocation until verified", "health data/source protection required" ], "legal_theory": "If verified, misallocation of public-health capacity or biobank priority toward foreign control or external benefit over Congolese protection may constitute a grave breach of public-health duty and sovereign capability protection.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 60, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 55, "evidence_strength": 25, "health_compromised": 85, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 90, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 70, "security_compromised": 45 }, "public_note": "This case is framed as a public-health sovereignty inquiry. It is not a final legal finding.", "required_sources": [ "INRB governance, budget, audit and partnership records", "biobank/sample/data custody agreements and benefit-sharing clauses", "public-health funding allocation record and population-benefit analysis", "official communications on US or foreign cooperation priority", "biosafety approvals, ethics approvals and national data/sample custody rules", "Congolese researcher/lab capability impact record", "right-of-reply from INRB, Ministry of Health, Presidency and external partners" ], "risk_level": "critical", "status": "published", "summary": "Evidence-gated case template for assessing whether public-health funds, biobank governance, pathogen/sample custody, laboratory priorities or foreign cooperation placed external interests ahead of Congolese population benefit, biosafety and scientific sovereignty.", "title": "DRC biobank / INRB / foreign-priority public-health sovereignty dossier", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-KENYA-EBOLA-US-PATIENTS-001", "case_type": "biosafety_population_protection_case", "country": "Kenya", "evidence_state": "starter_case", "flags": [ "starter profile", "requires dated primary sources", "medical privacy protection required", "avoid naming patients" ], "legal_theory": "If verified, accepting biosafety risks that the sending state considers too dangerous for its own public systems, without transparent protections and local benefit, may compromise public-health sovereignty and population protection.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 55, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 35, "evidence_strength": 20, "health_compromised": 90, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 65, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 75, "security_compromised": 50 }, "public_note": "No patient identity or private medical details should ever be exposed. The inquiry concerns public decision-making and biosafety governance.", "required_sources": [ "official Kenyan and foreign government communications", "patient/sample transfer agreements and biosafety risk assessments", "WHO/CDC or equivalent technical guidance applicable at the time", "hospital/lab readiness documents and health-worker protection record", "public consent/consultation and parliamentary oversight record", "incident chronology and community protection measures", "right-of-reply from relevant ministries, hospitals and foreign partners" ], "risk_level": "critical", "status": "published", "summary": "Evidence-gated case template for assessing whether a government accepted foreign high-risk disease patients, samples or procedures without protections equivalent to the risk standard applied by the sending country or without sufficient national safeguards for Kenyan communities and health workers.", "title": "Kenya Ebola/foreign-patient biosafety and population-priority dossier", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-KENYA-FOREIGN-SOLDIERS-IMMUNITY-CHILD-ABUSE-001", "case_type": "foreign_military_immunity_case", "country": "Kenya", "evidence_state": "starter_case", "flags": [ "child/survivor protection mandatory", "do not publish names/exact locations", "requires legal review", "right-of-reply assessment required" ], "legal_theory": "If verified, granting or maintaining immunity structures despite credible abuse patterns may compromise constitutional duty, child protection, civilian protection and sovereign legal control.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 85, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 30, "evidence_strength": 25, "health_compromised": 55, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 20, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 90, "security_compromised": 80 }, "public_note": "This is a protected-population accountability dossier. Survivor dignity and source protection override public curiosity.", "required_sources": [ "SOFA, military cooperation agreement or immunity clause text", "court records, inquiry reports or official complaint records", "child-protection and survivor-support records where lawfully shareable", "credible investigative reports with corroboration", "incident chronology around bases/deployments without exposing survivors", "official response from Kenyan authorities and foreign military authorities", "redaction, child-protection and psychosocial harm review" ], "risk_level": "critical", "status": "published", "summary": "Evidence-gated case template for assessing whether foreign military presence, immunity arrangements or weak accountability mechanisms exposed host communities, children or survivors to abuse, impunity or intimidation.", "title": "Kenya foreign soldiers, immunity clauses and protected-population abuse dossier", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-DRC-PARAMILITARY-CONTRACTOR-CONSTITUTION-001", "case_type": "paramilitary_constitutional_case", "country": "DRC", "evidence_state": "starter_case", "flags": [ "starter profile", "requires primary contract/procurement evidence", "do not assert final constitutional violation until legal review", "civilian protection review required" ], "legal_theory": "If verified, authorizing or tolerating unaccountable paramilitary capacity, especially around mineral zones or strategic infrastructure, may violate constitutional monopoly of lawful force, civilian protection duties and sovereignty safeguards.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 95, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 80, "evidence_strength": 30, "health_compromised": 30, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 35, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 85, "security_compromised": 95 }, "public_note": "The public issue is constitutional control over force, not rumor. Naming companies or officials requires source-linked evidence and legal review.", "required_sources": [ "DRC constitutional provisions on armed force, sovereignty and security authority", "contracts, MOUs, procurement records or communications with private military/security actors", "public statements by the contractor, sponsors or foreign officials", "resource-zone deployment plans and civilian-protection safeguards", "human-rights incident chronology and accountability mechanisms", "parliamentary authorization or absence thereof", "right-of-reply from government, contractor, parent networks and affected communities" ], "risk_level": "critical", "status": "published", "summary": "Evidence-gated case template for assessing whether foreign private military, security contractor or paramilitary arrangements bypass constitutional control, invite foreign armed influence, or expose civilians and resource zones to unaccountable coercive force.", "title": "DRC paramilitary/private military contractor constitutional-risk dossier", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-REPEATED-HUMAN-RIGHTS-VIOLATIONS-001", "case_type": "human_rights_pattern_case", "country": "Pan-African framework", "evidence_state": "framework_template", "flags": [ "pattern template", "must avoid exposing victims", "requires jurisdiction-specific law mapping" ], "legal_theory": "Repeated violations combined with official knowledge, failure to prevent, failure to investigate, retaliation against complainants or resource/security capture may show a breach of the protective duty of state office.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 85, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 40, "evidence_strength": 0, "health_compromised": 50, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 25, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 90, "security_compromised": 80 }, "public_note": "This template supports reproducible review of repeated abuse patterns without exposing protected people.", "required_sources": [ "incident chronology", "victim/survivor protection protocol", "official complaint, court, inquiry or ombudsman records", "UN/AU/regional human-rights records where available", "state response or failure-to-respond record", "public statements and verified transcripts", "right-of-reply and correction record" ], "risk_level": "critical", "status": "published", "summary": "Framework for mapping repeated documented human-rights violations, state inaction, obstruction, impunity or public denial into an impeachment/high-treason inquiry when the pattern compromises population protection and constitutional duty.", "title": "Repeated human-rights violations as constitutional accountability trigger", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-DIGITAL-ID-FOREIGN-CUSTODY-001", "case_type": "data_sovereignty_case", "country": "Pan-African", "evidence_state": "framework_template", "flags": [ "template only", "requires country-specific law" ], "legal_theory": "Foreign custody or opaque vendor control over biometric population data may compromise constitutional duty, privacy, security and institutional independence if safeguards are absent.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 65, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 55, "evidence_strength": 20, "health_compromised": 20, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 85, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 45, "security_compromised": 70 }, "public_note": "Method template, not a final finding.", "required_sources": [ "digital ID contracts", "DPIA/data protection findings", "hosting/cloud custody records", "cybersecurity audits", "citizen exclusion/remedy data", "vendor and agency responses" ], "risk_level": "high", "status": "published", "summary": "Assesses whether leaders or agencies transferred biometric/digital ID control to foreign vendors or clouds without safeguards, audits, sovereignty, citizen remedy and public accountability.", "title": "Digital ID/biometric foreign-custody capability-compromise inquiry", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-STRATEGIC-PORT-CONCESSION-001", "case_type": "strategic_infrastructure_sovereignty_case", "country": "Pan-African", "evidence_state": "framework_template", "flags": [ "template only", "requires contract evidence" ], "legal_theory": "A concession that knowingly compromises strategic infrastructure control without transparency, exit rights and local capability can trigger parliamentary or constitutional accountability review.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 60, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 80, "evidence_strength": 20, "health_compromised": 10, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 30, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 35, "security_compromised": 65 }, "public_note": "Method template, not a final finding.", "required_sources": [ "concession contracts", "debt guarantees", "parliamentary approval records", "audit reports", "security access clauses", "right-of-reply" ], "risk_level": "high", "status": "published", "summary": "Assesses whether concession terms for ports, airports, rail or logistics corridors transfer strategic leverage, tariff control, security access or debt exposure contrary to public interest.", "title": "Strategic port/logistics concession constitutional accountability inquiry", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-FOREIGN-MILITARY-IMMUNITY-NO-REMEDY-001", "case_type": "security_sovereignty_case", "country": "Pan-African", "evidence_state": "framework_template", "flags": [ "template only", "source-protection required" ], "legal_theory": "Unreviewed immunity that disables protection of citizens may compromise constitutional duty and security sovereignty.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 80, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 40, "evidence_strength": 20, "health_compromised": 30, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 20, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 85, "security_compromised": 90 }, "public_note": "Method template, not final legal finding.", "required_sources": [ "SOFA/base agreements", "immunity clauses", "incident chronology", "court/police records", "parliamentary records", "official responses" ], "risk_level": "critical", "status": "published", "summary": "Assesses whether leaders accepted foreign troop/contractor immunity without local jurisdiction, survivor remedy, public oversight or exit rights.", "title": "Foreign military immunity without remedy accountability inquiry", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-RESOURCE-FOR-PROTECTION-PRIVATE-DEAL-001", "case_type": "resource_security_sovereignty_case", "country": "Pan-African", "evidence_state": "framework_template", "flags": [ "template only", "requires contract evidence" ], "legal_theory": "Secret or asymmetrical resource-for-security arrangements can compromise economic sovereignty, constitutional order and civilian protection.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 80, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 90, "evidence_strength": 20, "health_compromised": 20, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 25, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 65, "security_compromised": 75 }, "public_note": "Method template, not final legal finding.", "required_sources": [ "contracts/MOUs", "beneficial ownership", "security arrangements", "budget/export data", "parliament/court records", "right-of-reply" ], "risk_level": "critical", "status": "published", "summary": "Assesses whether officials traded mineral, land, port, oil or infrastructure rights for political/security protection without lawful public-interest guarantees.", "title": "Resource-for-protection private deal accountability inquiry", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-PUBLIC-FUNDS-PRESTIGE-OVER-SURVIVAL-001", "case_type": "budget_misallocation_case", "country": "Pan-African", "evidence_state": "framework_template", "flags": [ "template only", "requires budget line evidence" ], "legal_theory": "Severe, repeated budget misallocation away from life-protecting capabilities can trigger public-duty and constitutional accountability review.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 55, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 80, "evidence_strength": 20, "health_compromised": 75, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 35, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 70, "security_compromised": 50 }, "public_note": "Method template, not final legal finding.", "required_sources": [ "budget execution", "audit reports", "procurement records", "health/school/security shortage data", "public statements", "official responses" ], "risk_level": "high", "status": "published", "summary": "Assesses whether public funds were allocated to prestige, propaganda, travel, vanity projects or external appeasement while health, labs, victims, food, security or schools lacked basic protection.", "title": "Public funds redirected from survival capability to prestige spending inquiry", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-SURVEILLANCE-AGAINST-CITIZENS-001", "case_type": "digital_repression_case", "country": "Pan-African", "evidence_state": "framework_template", "flags": [ "template only", "victim/source protection required" ], "legal_theory": "Misuse of surveillance against citizens can compromise constitutional order, safety, security and democratic accountability.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 90, "economic_sovereignty_compromised": 35, "evidence_strength": 20, "health_compromised": 10, "knowledge_data_sovereignty_compromised": 85, "right_of_reply_status": 0, "safety_compromised": 70, "security_compromised": 75 }, "public_note": "Method template, not final legal finding.", "required_sources": [ "forensic reports", "procurement records", "court/inquiry records", "victim-safe incident logs", "legal authorization records", "official response" ], "risk_level": "critical", "status": "published", "summary": "Assesses whether state officials acquired or used surveillance systems against journalists, opposition, researchers, unions or communities contrary to constitutional protections.", "title": "Surveillance tools used against citizens/public-interest actors inquiry", "visibility": "public" }, { "case_id": "IMPEACH-CIV-OUATTARA-HTF-TRAFFICKING-001", "title": "Côte d’Ivoire / Ouattara — devoir de protection, trafficking-risk governance, Epstein-network exposure et usurpation constitutionnelle", "country": "Côte d’Ivoire", "href": "dossier-civ-ouattara-trafficking-htf.html", "risk_level": "critical", "case_type": "named_constitutional_trafficking_protection_inquiry", "evidence_state": "mixed_public_evidence_plus_protected_annex_required", "visibility": "public_summary_plus_sealed_annex", "status": "action_dossier_open_source_and_protected_evidence", "summary": "Teste si la convergence entre quatrième mandat contesté, répression de l’opposition, détentions arbitraires, vulnérabilités de traite, travail forcé/infantile dans le cacao, exposition de l’entourage présidentiel au réseau Epstein et risques de trafic d’organes peut fonder une procédure de responsabilité constitutionnelle et une saisine internationale.", "legal_theory": "Le chef de l’État n’est pas propriétaire de la population ni de la souveraineté. Il agit comme mandataire public. Lorsque l’État tolère des conditions de traite, restreint les mécanismes de correction politique, protège les réseaux d’élite, ou échoue à démontrer une diligence renforcée face à des risques graves touchant enfants, femmes, travailleurs, opposants et personnes vulnérables, le mandat de protection est rompu.", "metrics": { "constitutional_order_compromised": 86, "security_compromised": 78, "safety_compromised": 90, "human_trafficking_risk": 93, "child_labor_forced_labor": 92, "elite_network_exposure": 88, "organ_removal_public_evidence": 35, "evidence_strength": 72, "actionability": 82, "protected_evidence_dependency": 80 }, "required_sources": [ "Constitution ivoirienne 2016 et jurisprudence électorale", "dossiers de la Commission électorale / Conseil constitutionnel", "rapports Amnesty/HRW/ONU/OIT/US TIP/US DOL", "dossiers cacao, travail forcé, traite et protection de l’enfance", "documents Epstein publics, correspondances et réponses officielles", "dossiers de détention/opposition/procès inéquitables", "annexes confidentielles: victimes, témoins, cliniques, itinéraires, intermédiaires, preuves numériques" ], "flags": [ "named public-interest inquiry", "not final criminal finding", "organ-harvesting layer requires protected evidence", "right of reply mandatory", "witness protection required" ] } ]