The interim judge of the Senegal Supreme Court has declined to rule urgently on the case concerning Ousmane Sonko’s installation as a deputy, citing the matter as falling under the internal affairs of the parliamentary institution. This decision follows the filing of a complaint by the National Union of Independent Deputies of Senegal, which contested the validity of the procedure that enabled the Pastef leader to reclaim his parliamentary seat prior to assuming the presidency of the National Assembly.
This judicial proceeding adds to an earlier ruling by the Constitutional Council, which also declared itself incompetent in June to examine a similar appeal filed by eighteen opposition deputies. The Council argued that the contested act did not directly relate to the electoral process, thereby falling outside its jurisdiction in matters of national election integrity. With two high courts—the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Council—now abstaining from adjudicating the merits of the dispute over Sonko’s return to Parliament, legal ambiguity persists.
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision, lawyer Amadou Guèye condemned the ruling, describing it as a breach of judicial duty and a catalyst for legal disorder. His remarks echo the criticisms voiced by numerous jurists and opposition leaders, who have long decried what they perceive as a judicial vacuum surrounding this case. Sonko himself has labeled the successive appeals as politically motivated ploys by his adversaries, asserting that these legal maneuvers are driven by partisan interests rather than legal principles.
While the interim judge has refused to issue an urgent ruling, the outcome of the substantive appeal remains pending. This unresolved matter continues to fuel tensions between the parliamentary majority aligned with Sonko and a segment of the opposition, which has pursued multiple legal avenues without success thus far. The uncertainty surrounding the case underscores the deepening divisions within Senegal‘s political and judicial landscape.
