Congress authorizes Chávez to stay in Cuba for as long as necessary
National Assembly Speaker Diosdado Cabello said that January 10 is not a date set in stone for the inauguration of the Venezuelan president
- TSJ dismisses petition for Congress' speaker to take office on January 10
- Bolivian and Uruguayan presidents to visit Venezuela on January 10
- Brazil endorses "sensible" extension for Chávez's swearing-in ceremony
- President Chávez not to attend swearing-in ceremony on January 10
- US: On January 10, the decision should be "free, fair and transparent"
- Opposition leader urges top court to rule on presidential inauguration
- Constitution does not provide for continuing presidential term
- Opposition: Chávez's no-show for inauguration breaches the Constitution
Cabello said that "for some people" January 10 is a date set in stone for the presidential inauguration. However, he stressed that this is not the first time that the Venezuelan president is sworn in on a different date than that provided for in the Constitution. He reminded that in 2000, the Head of State was sworn in on August 19.
Further, he argued that some sectors opposed to Chávez's government "find this moment politically convenient." He added that democratic institutions are operational in Venezuela, but in his view, "the opposition is the only thing that does not work."
On the other hand, he said the unity within Chavezism is unwavering. "The day anything happens, Nicolás (Maduro, the Venezuelan Executive Vice-President) and I will be here together. I do not know if you (the opposition) are going to be together," he said.
"They shall not pass! They shall not come back!" Cabello said referring to Venezuelan dissenters.
Pablo Jiménez Guaricuco was summarily dismissed from his Clerk III job at the Autonomous Service of Public Registries and Notaries' Offices (Saren). He read a notice published in a newspaper on November 5 informing the public that he was no longer employed to the Saren. He was sacked despite the fact that he was taking a leave of absence from work due to a work-related accident, and that he enjoyed security of employment under the parental job-immunity privilege. Most probably, the decision was influenced by his role as a union organizer. But what did he do, besides leading protests, to deserve the sack? Well, he allegedly sent off a series of tweets that definitely hurt the sensitivity of the Saren Directorate.