During a plenary session focused on labor and social security code revisions, Senegal’s National Assembly President Ousmane Sonko took decisive action to quash speculation surrounding the constitutional reform process. With lawmakers assembled, he categorically denied claims that Parliament had issued an ultimatum to the president.

« These claims are entirely false, » he declared. « No ultimatum was ever directed at the president. » His remarks aimed to dispel perceptions of institutional tension or pressure on the presidency amid legislative deliberations. Sonko emphasized that the Assembly’s initiative aligns strictly with constitutional prerogatives, with no intention of confronting the executive branch. The goal, he explained, is to advance a public debate that has been ongoing for months.

In a measured tone, Sonko framed the constitutional revision as a legitimate exercise of Parliament’s derived constituent power, governed by the Constitution and constitutional court rulings. He highlighted a 2006 decision by the Constitutional Council as a key precedent, asserting that it confirms Parliament’s authority to initiate revisions provided a three-fifths majority is secured.

No crisis at the heart of the state

The Assembly President dismissed political interpretations framing the process as contentious. « There is no crisis between state institutions, » he stated. Instead, he described the situation as a normal exercise of checks and balances under the Constitution. Each branch, he argued, must fulfill its duties without encroaching on the others, subject to constitutional oversight.

Sonko firmly rejected suggestions of institutional conflict, stressing that Parliament’s initiative is neither an act of overreach nor coercion against the executive. « Those expecting a crisis at the highest levels of government should look elsewhere, » he asserted, reaffirming the continuity of the legislative process.

The President concluded by underscoring that the constitutional revision will proceed according to established legal frameworks, regardless of the executive’s formal stance—whether expressed or not. The central focus, he maintained, remains the integrity of institutional mechanisms within a stable and legally sound framework.