<![CDATA[This study analyzes the legal implications of the restructuring for good governance and formulates an ideal institutional model. It employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and institutional approaches. Legal materials are analyzed prescriptively based on legality, legal certainty, due care, proportionality, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability, and the public interest. Findings indicate that the restructuring has a legal basis within the President’s authority to organize state ministries. Substantively, however, it creates fragmented authority, overlapping functions, legal uncertainty during the transition, duplication of supporting structures, increased budgetary burdens, and longer coordination chains. It may also undermine the civil service merit system and public service quality if it is not accompanied by a clear allocation of authority, transitional regulations, and standard operating procedures. The formation of an excessively large cabinet without objectively demonstrated needs may be inconsistent with proportionality, effectiveness, and efficiency. Institutional reform should therefore be based on needs assessments, workload analysis, fiscal capacity, policy continuity, and a commitment to strengthening legal protection and public services. This study concludes that law and human rights affairs should be reintegrated into a single ministry, while immigration and corrections should remain under a separate ministry supported by binding, accountable coordination mechanisms to promote good governance.]]>
