Senegal court blocks Sonko-backed reform as Faye power struggle deepens

Senegal’s Constitutional Council has struck down a controversial constitutional amendment that would have expanded parliament’s powers and reduced presidential authority, halting one of the most important institutional projects backed by the ruling parliamentary majority. The ruling, delivered on July 10, 2026, found that the amendment adopted by lawmakers on June 29 was contrary to the constitution.

The rejected reform had been driven by Pastef, the ruling party led by Ousmane Sonko, the former prime minister and current president of the National Assembly. It would have strengthened parliamentary oversight, restricted the president’s power to dissolve the National Assembly, replaced the existing Constitutional Council with a new Constitutional Court, and barred a sitting president from simultaneously serving as leader of a political party.

President Bassirou Diomaye Faye had asked the Constitutional Council to review the legality of the procedure after the amendment passed parliament. The government had previously said the changes would be put to a referendum, but the council’s ruling effectively stops the reform before voters can be asked to decide on it.

The decision turns Senegal’s constitutional debate into a sharper test of power between two former allies who rose together in 2024 and have since fallen into open institutional rivalry. Faye dismissed Sonko as prime minister in May, while Sonko moved to the National Assembly and retained strong influence over the parliamentary majority.

Why did Senegal’s Constitutional Council reject the parliament-backed reform?

Senegal’s Constitutional Council rejected the reform after President Bassirou Diomaye Faye asked it to examine whether lawmakers had followed the procedures required to amend the constitution. The council found that the amendment adopted by the National Assembly was unconstitutional, stopping the process before the proposed referendum could move forward.

The ruling matters because it confirms that parliament cannot reshape the country’s institutional balance merely through a majority vote if the process itself violates constitutional requirements. For Senegal, a country still protecting its democratic reputation after recent years of political turbulence, the court’s intervention is a major assertion of judicial authority.

The amendment was not a minor technical change. It would have altered the relationship between the presidency, parliament and the country’s top constitutional body. It sought to strengthen legislative oversight while reducing presidential discretion in areas such as dissolving the National Assembly.

Supporters framed the reform as a democratic correction that would prevent excessive concentration of authority in the presidency. Critics saw it as a political weapon in the escalating rivalry between Faye and Sonko, especially because Sonko now controls significant influence inside parliament.

By striking down the amendment, the Constitutional Council has not resolved the political split. It has only shifted the next phase of the conflict from constitutional procedure to party discipline, parliamentary strategy and public legitimacy.

How did the Faye-Sonko alliance turn into Senegal’s central political fracture?

Bassirou Diomaye Faye and Ousmane Sonko came to power as symbols of political change after the 2024 election. Their alliance carried the promise of institutional renewal, economic sovereignty and a break from the turbulence of the final Macky Sall years.

That partnership has now fractured. Faye occupies the presidency, while Sonko, after being dismissed as prime minister, has moved into the National Assembly as speaker. This has created an unusual dual-power structure inside the ruling movement, with the president controlling the executive branch and Sonko holding strong influence over the legislature.

The constitutional reform reflected that split. A parliament led by Sonko’s political camp advanced changes that would have limited presidential power and expanded legislative authority. Faye then asked the Constitutional Council to review the process, effectively challenging a reform pushed by his own broader political family.

This is why the ruling is more than a legal development. It is a snapshot of a governing alliance moving from internal disagreement to institutional confrontation. The presidency, parliament and judiciary are now all involved in managing a dispute that began inside the ruling movement.

Sonko’s response was notably restrained. He said he respected the council’s decision and described it as binding, signalling that he does not intend to reject the ruling openly. That may calm the immediate crisis, but it does not remove the underlying competition for authority within Senegal’s political system.

What powers would the constitutional amendment have shifted from the presidency to parliament?

The reform would have strengthened parliament in several important ways. It would have required the government to inform lawmakers about agreements related to natural-resource exploitation, expanded the authority of parliamentary inquiry committees and placed stricter controls on the president’s ability to dissolve the National Assembly.

Those provisions were significant because Senegal is entering a period in which natural resources, debt management and public finance transparency are politically sensitive. Greater parliamentary scrutiny over resource deals could have increased oversight of contracts, revenues and state commitments in sectors central to Senegal’s economic future.

The amendment also proposed replacing the Constitutional Council with a nine-member Constitutional Court, expanding the existing structure. Supporters could argue that such a court would modernise constitutional adjudication and create broader institutional capacity. Critics could argue that changing the body during an active political conflict risks weakening trust in constitutional review.

Another major provision would have made the roles of head of state and political party leader incompatible. Faye had said last week that he planned to create his own political party, making this provision especially politically charged.

Taken together, the proposals would have shifted Senegal towards a stronger parliamentary model. The problem is that the reforms were introduced amid a power struggle, making it difficult for voters, courts and investors to separate institutional principle from immediate political advantage.

Why did critics see the reform as a Sonko power grab rather than democratic correction?

Critics viewed the reform through the timing of the Faye-Sonko split. If the same measures had been proposed during a calmer period, they might have been debated as long-term constitutional reform. Instead, they arrived shortly after Sonko lost the premiership and gained a powerful parliamentary platform.

Opponents argued that the amendment looked like retaliation by Sonko’s camp against the presidency. By strengthening parliament and limiting presidential authority, the reform would have shifted power towards the institution now led by Sonko.

Civil society groups and opposition figures protested when lawmakers debated the amendment on June 29. Demonstrators outside parliament denounced the changes with the slogan “Hands off my Constitution,” and police used tear gas during the protests.

The controversy illustrates a recurring problem in constitutional politics. Reforms that appear attractive in theory can lose legitimacy when they are pursued during a partisan battle. Even changes that improve oversight may be treated with suspicion if they seem designed to strengthen one faction at another’s expense.

The Constitutional Council’s ruling gives critics of the reform a major victory. But it also creates a new challenge for Faye: he must now show that his opposition to the amendment was about constitutional process and institutional stability, not simply preserving presidential power.

How does the ruling affect Senegal’s reputation as one of West Africa’s more stable democracies?

Senegal has long been viewed as one of West Africa’s more resilient democratic systems, but that reputation has been strained in recent years by election delays, protests, opposition arrests and disputes over constitutional authority.

The Constitutional Council’s decision could strengthen that reputation if it is seen as an example of institutions functioning under pressure. A court ruling against parliament, accepted by major political actors, would show that legal checks still matter in Senegal’s political system.

However, the deeper picture is more complicated. The fact that a ruling party split has escalated into a constitutional fight shows that Senegal’s political settlement remains fragile. Institutions are working, but they are being tested by a confrontation between leaders who once claimed the same reform mandate.

The ruling also comes after a period in which Senegalese politics has been marked by street mobilisation and distrust. Protesters see constitutional changes as potentially dangerous, while supporters of reform argue that the presidency needs stronger oversight.

If Faye and Sonko accept the ruling and negotiate a more deliberate reform process, Senegal could emerge with stronger institutional credibility. If they use the decision as another weapon in a prolonged struggle, the country could face legislative deadlock, public unrest and weaker investor confidence.

The immediate democratic signal is positive because the court has asserted authority. The longer-term political signal remains uncertain because the rivalry behind the reform has not ended.

Why does the constitutional dispute complicate Senegal’s economic and debt recovery?

Senegal’s political turbulence comes at a difficult economic moment. The country is trying to manage a debt crisis that intensified after the disclosure of previously unreported obligations in 2024. Reuters has reported that Senegal is seeking a financial adviser to help manage a debt burden that surged past $13 billion, equal to more than a quarter of the economy, after those liabilities were revealed.

The International Monetary Fund suspended an earlier lending programme after the debt misreporting episode, and Senegal has been trying to secure a new agreement. The government has also relied heavily on regional borrowing while facing limited access to international debt markets.

Political cohesion matters in this environment. Debt management requires consistent policy, budget discipline, credible communication with lenders and coordination between the presidency, finance ministry, parliament and central institutions. A power struggle between Faye and Sonko can make those tasks harder.

Investors and multilateral lenders will watch whether the government can make decisions without institutional paralysis. Constitutional uncertainty can increase risk premiums because markets dislike unclear authority over budgets, reforms and external financing.

The rejected amendment also involved parliamentary oversight of natural-resource agreements. That issue is economically important because resource revenues can influence debt sustainability, public spending and investor confidence. Senegal needs transparency, but it also needs predictable rules that are not rewritten through factional conflict.

The court ruling may reduce immediate uncertainty by blocking a contested reform. The bigger economic question is whether Faye and Sonko can rebuild enough cooperation to manage debt, reforms and public expectations.

What could happen next after the reform was ruled unconstitutional?

The first possibility is that Faye’s camp treats the ruling as the end of the matter and moves forward with a new government structure, possibly including a new prime minister and a clearer executive programme.

The second possibility is that Sonko’s parliamentary majority revises the amendment and attempts a new constitutional process. If that happens, the design and timing of the reform will be crucial. A more consultative process involving civil society, opposition parties and legal experts could reduce suspicion, but only if the reforms are not seen as serving one faction.

The third possibility is political stalemate. Sonko’s position as National Assembly president gives him significant influence over legislation, while Faye retains the presidency. If the two camps cannot cooperate, Senegal could face a divided ruling movement and a slower reform agenda.

The fourth possibility is party realignment. Faye’s stated plan to set up his own political party could formalise the split and reshape Senegal’s political map. That would turn an internal Pastef dispute into a broader competition between rival reformist blocs.

The fifth possibility is renewed public mobilisation. If citizens believe constitutional change is being manipulated for elite rivalry, protests could return. Senegal’s recent history shows that constitutional and electoral disputes can quickly move from parliament to the streets.

The Constitutional Council has halted one amendment, but it has not settled the future of Senegal’s political system. The next phase will depend on whether Faye and Sonko choose negotiation, rivalry or escalation.

What are the key takeaways from Senegal’s Constitutional Council ruling?

• Senegal’s Constitutional Council ruled on July 10, 2026, that a parliament-backed constitutional amendment adopted on June 29 was contrary to the constitution, halting the reform before a referendum could proceed.
• The rejected amendment would have expanded parliament’s powers, strengthened inquiry committees, increased oversight of natural-resource agreements and placed stricter limits on the president’s power to dissolve the National Assembly.
• The reform also proposed replacing the existing Constitutional Council with a new nine-member Constitutional Court, a change that critics said was risky during a period of intense political rivalry.
• The amendment was driven by Pastef, the ruling party led by Ousmane Sonko, who was dismissed as prime minister in May and later became president of the National Assembly.
• President Bassirou Diomaye Faye challenged the legality of the amendment procedure, placing the presidency and parliament on opposite sides of a major constitutional fight within the same ruling political movement.
• Critics viewed the reform as a possible power grab by Sonko’s camp because it would have reduced presidential authority while strengthening the legislature now led by the former prime minister.
• The ruling may strengthen Senegal’s institutional credibility if political leaders respect it, but it also exposes the widening split between Faye and Sonko after their joint rise to power in 2024.
• The political uncertainty comes as Senegal tries to manage a debt crisis, repair relations with the International Monetary Fund and reassure lenders after the disclosure of previously unreported obligations.