Senegal’s Constitutional Council has struck down a major institutional reform proposed by the ruling Pastef party, dealing a significant setback to Ousmane Sonko’s political strategy. The council ruled that the reform, which aimed to rebalance institutional powers, violated constitutional provisions on two critical fronts.

The decision, delivered on Thursday, specifically highlighted the absence of a funding mechanism for the proposed constitutional court and procedural irregularities during parliamentary debates. The council’s ruling followed a direct referral by President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, signaling a growing rift between the two key figures of the Pastef movement.

Constitutional flaws derail ambitious reform

The rejected reform package included provisions for enhanced parliamentary oversight over natural resource contracts and expanded investigative powers for lawmakers. However, the Constitutional Council found these measures unconstitutional due to procedural violations and financial planning deficiencies.

Adji Diarra Mergane Kanouté, former MP and leader of the USD/A party, emphasized the constitutional breaches in the reform process. “While the council’s decision invalidates the current proposal, it doesn’t preclude future legislative attempts. However, any new initiative must comply with constitutional requirements, particularly regarding public expenditure and parliamentary procedures,” she explained.

Political fallout intensifies

The ruling comes at a particularly tense moment in Senegal’s political landscape, with growing divisions between President Faye and former Prime Minister Sonko. Sonko, who was removed from the premiership in May, had recently assumed the presidency of the National Assembly, further concentrating power in his hands.

In a rare public acknowledgment of the court’s decision, Sonko took to social media to recognize the Constitutional Council’s authority. Meanwhile, presidential allies stressed the importance of institutional stability and continued reform discussions. Civil society leader Dr. Binette Ndiaye praised the council’s decision as a necessary check on majority rule.

Societal implications of the ruling

The decision has sparked broader discussions about democratic governance in Senegal. Civil society representatives argue that constitutional reforms require inclusive processes rather than partisan initiatives. “The council’s ruling reminds us that even with a parliamentary majority, consensus-building remains essential in a republic,” commented one commentator.

The political tensions extend beyond institutional reforms. Observers note that the court’s decision may further destabilize the already fragile relationship between Senegal’s two most prominent political figures, potentially reshaping the country’s political future.