Ecuador Electoral Council Denies Recall Petition Forms Against President Noboa

Ecuador's National Electoral Council (CNE) has once again rejected the distribution of forms necessary to begin a recall process against President Daniel Noboa and Vice President María José Pinto. The unanimous decision on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, marks a continuation of the electoral body's stance against the petitions, which have previously been dismissed for failing to meet essential legal and technical requirements.

The CNE's Directorate of Legal Advisory Services prepared a report concluding that the proponents did not provide objective evidence demonstrating the President's failure to adhere to his pluriannual work plan. Electoral councilors highlighted a recurring technical flaw in the requests: the lack of specific accusations against each official. Despite the president and vice president being elected as a ticket, the council stressed that they hold distinct roles and responsibilities. The resolution noted that the petitioners failed to identify which specific obligation each official allegedly violated or the circumstances surrounding these alleged omissions, elements deemed crucial for due process.

During the plenary debate, council members unanimously agreed that the CNE's authority does not extend to assessing the merits of public policy or the government's economic management. They stated that references to letters of intent with international organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund, and subjective interpretations of economic data are insufficient grounds for a recall. The council's mandate, they reiterated, is strictly limited to verifying whether a request clearly identifies a cause for recall as stipulated in current regulations, a threshold they found unmet in this instance.

The CNE's decision means the process to collect signatures for a recall referendum against Noboa cannot proceed at this time. The council's ruling will be formally notified, leading to the definitive archiving of the current petitions.

“

The summoning of witnesses is certainly based on the needs of the investigators. Not simply because someone retired from their position and then summoned for questioning.