A fresh standoff between the executive and the parliamentary majority. On Thursday, 1 October 2026, the National Assembly led by Ousmane Sonko overrode the government’s amendments on the special funds reform, despite the use of the blocked vote. The text, an organic law, now heads to the Constitutional Council, where President Bassirou Diomaye Faye’s camp could once again prevail.

Organic bill No. 38/2026, which amends the Organic Law on Finance Laws (LOLF), was on the agenda of Thursday’s plenary session. Its stated aim is to strengthen budget transparency and regulate the management of special funds, credits often described as the presidency’s “slush fund.”

This is a second attempt. A first initiative was struck down by the Constitutional Council on 25 August 2026, in its decision No. 7/C/2026. The judges then recalled that the status of public credits fell exclusively within the domain of organic law. The Pastef MPs therefore returned with the correct legal vehicle, but on substance, the disagreement with the executive remains complete.

The government defends the president’s “social role”

Before the MPs, it was the Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals, Me Moussa Sarr, who carried the government’s position. While saying he shared the transparency objective, the executive proposed deep adjustments.

The first disagreement concerns the nature of special funds. The bill sought to make them a distinct category, reserved for defense, security and diplomacy missions. The government opposes this. According to it, such a restriction would ignore the social character of the Republic enshrined in Article 1 of the Constitution. In its view, the head of state must be able to mobilize these resources for national solidarity actions in the face of humanitarian emergencies.

Through Amendment No. 2, the executive proposed reintegrating these expenditures into the global allocation of constitutional institutions, provided for in Article 14 of the LOLF. Me Moussa Sarr invoked Directive No. 06/2009/CM/UEMOA, which sets a limitative list of budget allocations. Isolating special funds would, according to him, create a legal vacuum, by failing to designate their authorizing officer.

The second point of friction concerns the MPs’ oversight powers, provided for in Article 70. Through Amendment No. 3, the government wanted to limit the Finance Committee’s monitoring to the current annual management. It thus removed the possibility for the Assembly to control the use of credits at the end of each budget year. For the Keeper of the Seals, such a prerogative would encroach on the exclusive powers of the Court of Auditors.

The executive also wanted any request for a minister’s hearing by MPs to be mandatorily transmitted to the President of the Republic, in accordance with the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.

Heading to the Constitutional Council

To lock down the text, the government brought out the weapon of the blocked vote. Me Moussa Sarr requested the application of Article 82, paragraph 4, of the Constitution and Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure, which impose a single vote on the text with only the amendments retained by the government. “The government does not see transparency as a constraint, but as a lever for consolidating the rule of law,” he argued, presenting the blocked vote as a tool provided by the Constitution to ensure the coherence of texts.

The Pastef majority did not follow. The MPs rejected all of the executive’s proposals to maintain their own version of the text. The disagreement between the Palace and the Hemicycle is now consummated.

The outcome of this standoff will be played out before the judges. An organic law can only be promulgated after being declared compliant with the Constitution by the Constitutional Council, seized by the President of the Republic. The text voted by the majority will therefore have to pass through this filter.

The government will then have several arguments: compliance with UEMOA directives, the powers of the Court of Auditors, and the regularity of the procedure, after the rejection of a blocked vote that was nonetheless provided for by the Constitution. These are all points on which the judges will have to rule.