Let’s be clear: the law cannot be a tool of the administration in power. It must be the boundary within which that administration operates.

If the government writes the rules, interprets the rules, and enforces the rules—all at the same time—then we do not have a legal system. We have a decree system. The moment the government is above the law, the law ceases to protect the citizen. It only protects the state.

This is not a philosophical abstraction; it is a mechanical reality. For a society to function with integrity, the legal framework must be fixed, predictable, and independent. It must constrain the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary equally. If the government can amend the constitution with a simple majority, or ignore court rulings without consequence, then the law is merely policy. And policy changes with the wind.

We often confuse "legality" with "justice." They are not the same. An action can be perfectly legal and entirely unjust, if the law has been tailored to serve those in power. That is why the law must be higher than the government—not just in rhetoric, but in structure. It must be harder to change than the government itself. It must be enforceable against the government itself.

The citizen should be able to stand before a judge and know that the judge answers to the constitution, not to the minister who appointed him. The investor should know that the contract signed today will be honored tomorrow, regardless of who wins the election. The journalist should know that his rights are not subject to the mood of the ruling party.

When the law is above the government, the government is accountable. When the government is above the law, the people are subjects. That is the distinction between a republic and a dominion. It is not complicated—it is just costly. It costs power. But the alternative costs everything else.