President Putin recently called the change in government in Ukraine an "anti-constitutional coup and a military seizure of power". Obviously, the interim government and their Western allies disagree, however I couldn't find a clear answer on whether the process followed to oust former President Yanukovych was actually in line with the Ukrainian constitution.
Was it?
No, it was illegal.
Jay Ulfelder discussed this topic among others in a nice blogpost I quote for convenience:
The vote to remove Yanukovych doesn’t seem to have followed constitutional procedures. Under Articles 108-112 of Ukraine’s constitution (here), there are four ways a sitting president may leave office between elections: resignation, incapacitation, death, and impeachment. None of the first three happened—early rumors to the contrary, Yanukovych has vehemently denied that he resigned—so that leaves the fourth, impeachment. According to Article 111, impeachment must follow a specific set of procedures: Parliament must vote to impeach and then convene a committee to investigate. That committee must investigate and report back to parliament, which must then vote to bring charges. A final vote to convict may only come after receipt of a judgment from the Constitutional Court that “the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of treason or other crime.”
And this final vote would have taken the votes of at least 3/4 of all MPs (338), whereas only 328 MPs simply voted for impeachment in a clearly unconstitutional way.
Let me share my observations as a Ukrainian citizen, from Kharkiv, Eastern Ukraine.
On February 21, 2014 Yanukovych and the opposition signed an agreement on resolving the crisis in Ukraine, one of the conditions was the immediate (within 2 days) rollback to the Constitution of 2004, constitutional reform and early presidential elections no later than December 2014.
The same day, right after signing the agreement, Yanukovych left Kyiv even without driving home.
The next day in the interview Yanukovych said that he would not resign and is not going to sign the decision of the Verkhovna Rada, which it considers illegal, and what is happening in the country qualified as "vandalism and gangsterism".
Form this moment it was clear that he run away, made everybody fool, and was not going to do what he signed on February 21.
Actually, Yanukovych in unconstitutional manner withdrew from the exercise of constitutional authority and did not fulfill his obligations.
On February 23 Acting President Rights were assigned to Oleksandr Turchynov.
It was absolutely unclear where Yanukovych has gone.
The east of the country was under separatists attack. Yanukovich seemed to be somewhere there. Assigning rights to new temporary president was the only correct way to save the country.
So it was absolutely legal.
I am sure this is more phylosophical and ethical question than it seems.
The status of "legalness" gained always afterwards when a new law order established, or the old order restored. Therefore in a point of view yes, it could be anti-constitutional (to be sure, one with decent ukrainian language knowledge have to check the ukrainian constitution if it allows to remove people from power if they become too powerful).
But from the perspective of the new law order it needs only a declaration to legalize the happenings, and it needs stable enforcement.
To make it clear, I am almost 100% sure in North Korea it is not constitutional if somebody coup Kim Jong Un and his militaristic leadership. But if happens and the coup is succeded that will be considered a legal revolution.
But an another example from history: The Hungarian Revolution in Austrian Empire happened in 1848. It was not legal for any ethnic group to leave the empire and declare freedom. It wasn't legal to use Hungarian as official language etc.
The plot is clear: If Hungary fights and keeps freedom then the country itself gets legalized. If Austria wins the old order restored and independent Hungary with different government stays illegal. However Hungary later received several autonomy laws from Austria, and from 1865 the empire became Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I hope somebody can improve this answer with more knowledge of law.
