In less than 24 hours, the crisis within the CPT escalates: Smith Augustin hardens his stance, Gérald Gilles frames the exit strategy.

Port-au-Prince, January 25, 2026. The political crisis within Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council (CPT) has sharply accelerated in less than 24 hours. Two public statements — from Smith Augustin and Louis Gérald Gilles — have pushed the sequence into a new phase, as the country approaches February 7, 2026, the official end date of the CPT’s mandate.

On one side, Smith Augustin openly embraces a political break. On the other, Gérald Gilles seeks to politically frame and manage the institutional landing. Two messages, one shared urgency.

Smith Augustin: “I voted. I signed. I take full responsibility.”

In a post published on X, Smith Augustin unequivocally claimed responsibility for his participation in the vote that led to the dismissal of Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé, a move presented as a prerequisite for continuing the national dialogue.

“I made this decision in full legality, in the complete exercise of my presidential prerogatives. I fully assume it.”

Presenting himself as an author, scholar, diplomat, human rights activist and Jesuit, he anchors his decision in a moral posture, invoking social justice, coherence and historical responsibility.

“I fear neither pressure nor slander, only the judgment of History. This political maneuver must stop. Haiti will not be held hostage by strategies aimed at destroying the other.”

Gérald Gilles: End of Mandate, Rule Compliance and Risk Management

Louis Gérald Gilles also spoke out to reaffirm what he considers a non-negotiable framework:

“The CPT’s mandate comes to an end on February 7, 2026. There is no doubt about that.”

“Leslie Voltaire was clear — and we are clear as well: the CPT’s mandate ends on February 7, 2026. There is no ambiguity. However, as responsible women and men of state, we intend to find a modus operandi with the nation’s vital forces in order to preserve a stable and calm climate. A working timetable is currently being prepared through February 6 for this purpose. We reaffirm our determination to ensure that the majority decision is respected, in accordance with the decree governing the CPT.”

The Day Before: A De-escalation Attempt That Failed

These statements came one day after a series of discreet meetings. Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé visited both Smith Augustin and Emmanuel Vertilaire in a last-minute effort to slow the momentum toward political rupture.

In political and diplomatic circles, a key question remains: is the current sequence being fueled by indirect international pressure, or by an internal patriotic surge aimed at reclaiming control of the political calendar?

In his public remarks, Smith Augustin clearly asserts independence of decision-making and claims his choice is dictated solely by national interest. Yet the proximity of the deadline and diplomatic signals continue to fuel divergent interpretations.

What Exactly Happened in Less Than 24 Hours?

How could a discreet mediation attempt by the Prime Minister lead, only hours later, to such a frontal stance by Smith Augustin and a firm institutional framing by Gérald Gilles?
What, in those exchanges, was not negotiated — or poorly negotiated?
Are we witnessing the effects of silent international pressure, or an internal patriotic rebound aimed at regaining control over a fragile transition?

Which guarantees were judged insufficient, or simply nonexistent?

Which political balances collapsed in such an extremely short time frame?

Assiste-t-on à l’effet d’une pression internationale silencieuse, ou à un sursaut patriotique interne visant à reprendre la main sur une transition fragilisée ?

Did the letter sent by Smith Augustin to Laurent Saint-Cyr serve as a trigger, a breaking point, or a deliberately assumed political lock?

Is the CPT majority now irreversible, or does room remain for political realignment?

Is the country entering a phase of healthy clarification — or a new zone of institutional instability?
And above all: who now controls the political tempo as February 7, 2026 approaches?

So many open questions lie at the heart of a sequence that is reshaping the balance of power at the top of the State.

Editorial