in the decision by opposition parties to withdraw from the discussions which undermined the inclusiveness of the reform process. According to the Applicants, the absence adequately of such terms of reference prepare for the discussions prevented the opposition and prevented them from parties to knowing the 209. The Applicants also challenge that the criteria for selecting which CSOs are conclusions of each round of discussion. allowed to participate in the legislative reform were not clearly defined. They put forward that the participating CSOs lacked proven competence and independence. 210. The Applicants note that all the amendments proposed by the parliamentary opposition were simply rejected and that this could be considered as an abuse of majority power. Furthermore, the Applicants also observe that the new impugned law includes elements that were not subjected to previous political consultations. 211. Furthermore, the Applicants claim that the adopted law was never made available to the various parliamentary groups to enable them to lodge an appeal with the Constitutional Council. They contend that it is for that reason that the sixty-six (66) opposition members that brought the matter before the Constitutional Court only presented the amended draft. This was subsequently the reason the Constitutional Council found in its decision of 5 August 2019 that their Application is inadmissible, since it cannot decide on draft laws. 212. The Applicants also challenge the subsequent hasty promulgation of the law and claim that it undermined the democratic nature of the legislative reform process, especially because constitutionality of it prevented the law. The the opposition Applicants parties submit from that the challenging new law the was promulgated the same day the members of parliament submitted the petition to the Constitutional Council to challenge the law. 213. The Applicants similarly contend that the adoption by government of a new law on 4 March 2020 to alter the composition of the Respondent State’s electoral body by an Order of the President also reveals its lacking democratic nature. 46