Alioune Souaré (Expert) : «Le magistrat est maintenant tenu obligatoirement de répondre à la convocation…»
Following the promulgation of Organic Law 2025-11 of August 18th, establishing the internal regulations of the National Assembly, Alioune Souaré warned of the retention of Article 56, paragraph 2, which provides for the summoning of magistrates to a parliamentary commission of inquiry, despite the observations of the Constitutional Council. In this interview with Seneweb, the parliamentary expert explains the potential consequences of such a measure and responds to MP Amadou Bâ.
In the new rules of procedure of the National Assembly, the provision concerning the summoning of magistrates is definitively maintained. How would you describe this as a parliamentary expert?
Since Wednesday, August 27, the Official Journal has published Law 2025-11 of August 18, 2025, on internal regulations, following its promulgation. This law, in principle, has entered into force since Friday. The Constitutional Council had issued four observations: on paragraph 2 of Article 56; paragraph 6 of Article 60; paragraph 6 of Article 111 and Article 134. These are the articles censored by the Constitutional Council. It was realized that in the promulgation of the law, Article 56 paragraph 2, Article 60 paragraph 6, Article 111 paragraph 6 and Article 134 were withdrawn. However, they actually maintained Article 56 paragraph 5, which relates to the summoning of magistrates.
We wondered why this provision was maintained when the Constitutional Council had expressed reservations in its decision of July 24, 2025. In recitals 47, 48, 49, and 50, the Constitutional Council noted the principle of the separation of powers by invoking Article 88 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. And the Constitutional Council relied on this provision to evoke the principle of the separation and independence of magistrates. The second thing that was mentioned in these recitals by the Constitutional Council was the reservations regarding the summons, thus indicating that the magistrate may voluntarily, perhaps, respond to a summons, but it should not be a constraint. All this is to illustrate the independence and freedom of the judge.
What effect can this generate?
This means that now, the law that is promulgated is mandatory. As this provision currently stands, the magistrate is now required to respond to the summons. This is in contradiction with this provision of the Constitutional Council which speaks of the freedom of the judge. This provision will pose many difficulties because it brings us back to square one with all the debates we had with the very statement of certain magistrates who say that the magistrate is independent. The President, when he was promulgating the laws, did not take into account the observations of the Constitutional Council concerning the summons of magistrates.
What consequences can result from this?
This is going to be very complicated, especially between the two institutions. That is, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. While Article 56 currently allows MPs to summon a magistrate who is required by this new law to respond, in the same internal regulations, in Article 53, there is a prerogative that falls to the courts. Because the opening of a judicial investigation ends the mission of the parliamentary commission of inquiry. So we are currently in a situation where the courts have a weapon they can use. But MPs also have a weapon they can use.
Could this cause potential clashes between these two powers?
This situation is not excluded if we take into account the current relationship between those in power and the magistrates. If these power holders, who are currently in the majority in the National Assembly, persist and maintain a provision that allows them to summon magistrates, we imagine that today we are indeed heading towards situations that are perhaps not at all desirable for the country.
MP Amadou Bâ stated that the Constitutional Council did not censor the article on the hearing of magistrates by commissions of inquiry. He said the Council instead imposed a reservation of interpretation. Do you agree?
That's what I said. I said that the Constitutional Council made a reservation. But don't forget that the Constitutional Council, in its recital 48, referred to the provisions of Article 88 of the Constitution, which states that the judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. From this perspective alone, we can consider that MPs do not have the prerogative to be able to summon magistrates. Now, I agree with him that the Constitutional Council spoke of reservations. But these are reservations that had to be taken into account to avoid, possibly, any confrontation or difficulty in relations between the executive and the legislature.
In any case, in my understanding of the provisions of the Constitutional Council, if you read the recitals from 47 to 50, and you now come to the decisions, you read Article 2, everything suggests that even the Constitutional Council has a rather mixed position. Because somewhere, it evokes the independence of the judiciary, the principle of separation, invokes the provisions of Article 88. And on the other hand, it says that yes, it is possible. But there are reservations. And these reservations are that it would first have to emanate from the will of the magistrate and that the facts do not affect the secrecy of deliberation. If we currently look at the text that was promulgated and published, this provision has not been taken into account. And so, in the new promulgated text, it was clearly stated that when the parliamentary commission of inquiry wishes to hear magistrates in service, it requests the authorization of the Minister of Justice. This is a requirement, it is essential. This is no longer left to the judge's discretion. This provision has become a law that has been incorporated into the internal regulations. I believe it has an obligatory character. Judges must effectively comply with this requirement, which is contrary to what we had in the Constitutional Council's decision, which expressed reservations while invoking the principle of the separation of powers and the provisions of Article 88.
You mentioned a coup. Has this situation often occurred in Senegal?
This isn't the first time. It happened with the Ezzan law. At the time, when the law landed on his table, the Constitutional Council censored certain provisions. But when it was promulgated, we realized that these provisions were maintained.
The coup d'état lies in the fact that the Constitutional Council expressed reservations about the provisions on the summoning of magistrates. Today, the President of the Republic has not taken this into account. Because he has reproduced exactly what was included in the initial text. However, in the initial text, the Constitutional Council had expressed reservations about the summoning of magistrates. It should have taken this into account when promulgating this law, which was not done. This is why I am talking about a coup d'état.
Commentaires (16)
C'EST FAUX. la disposition qui rendait obligatoire la comparution devant la commission d'enquête a été enlevée du texte.
Le magistrat peut juste être convoqué mais n'est pas tenu de répondre à la convocation
Le président n’a pas le pouvoir de passer outre une décision du Conseil constitutionnel, car celle-ci est définitive et s’impose à tous les pouvoirs publics.
Faux Si le Conseil constitutionnel censure totalement ou partiellement une loi, les dispositions concernées sont annulées et ne peuvent pas entrer en vigueur.
l'autorisation du ministre de la justice c'est juste pour pouvoir convoquer. Même si elle est donnée à l'assemblée, le magistrat reste libre de venir ou de ne pas venir
Il fallait le dire au moment ou tout le monde ici disait que les magistrats sénégalais devaient être" intouchables". Même aux USA, les magistrats répondent aux convocations des élus.
aux usa, les magistrats répondent VOLONTAIREMENT. S'ils ne veulent pas, ils répondent pas. Dans aucun pays au monde, une Assemblée nationale n'a un pouvoir de contrainte sur les gens
Les USA ne sont pas un modèle. Patati patata les USA bande de complexés.
Meme si ce que sit cet expert est vrai, le Magistrat ne sera pas tenu de respecter cette loi qui n'est pas constitutionnelle! Ce serait un imbroglio juridique que la cours conritutionnelle peut arbitrer!!
Au Sénégal on passe tout notre temps de parler de futilités au lieu de se concentrer sur des problèmes de développement (agriculture, industrie, innovations, ...).
On passe tout notre temps à parler de justice, de comment manœuvrer, manipuler, tripatouiller la loi loi fondamentale pour casser de l'opposant, mettre en prison des opposants, des journalistes, ....
Que les Sénégalais le sachent une bonne fois pour toute, tant que les politiciens vont diriger ce pays il faut oublier le développement, l'émergence....
Leurs seuls soucis c'est le pouvoir, l'argent, les détournements, la corruption, la gabegie, la recherche effrénée de privilèges indus, ......
A bon entendeur salut.
Koko non coco, inutile de te fâcher...
Pastef est un parti d'anarchistes.
Oh mon dieu le senegal
C est pas possible olalaa une telle action ne serait pas simplement qualifiée de « faute grave » dans un sens juridique précis, mais pourrait être considérée comme une atteinte au principe de l'État de droit et à la séparation des pouvoirs. Cela pourrait engager la responsabilité politique du président, voire, dans des cas extrêmes, déclencher des mécanismes comme la destitution si le Parlement juge qu'il s'agit d'un manquement manifeste à ses devoirs.
Le président de la République, tenu par son rôle de garant de la Constitution doit respecter cette décision. Il ne peut promulguer que les parties de la loi qui n'ont pas été censurées, si elles sont séparables, ou attendre une nouvelle version de la loi conforme à la Constitution
Les magistrats sont-ils des sénégalais entièrement à part ?
oui! Yallaa ko dotal. Ngoné Saliou et azoura fall sont des sénégalais entièrement à part non (vu leur impunité)? alors pourquoi pas les magistrats?
Quelqu'un qui peut juger un président est un senegalais entièrement a part
Ce gars est expert forcé de seneweb khana
Si le Conseil constitutionnel censure totalement ou partiellement une loi, les dispositions concernées sont annulées et ne peuvent pas entrer en vigueur.
Le magistrat est un fonctionnaire payé sur les deniers publics. Il doit répoondre à la commission parlementaire si nécessaire.
Ou va le Sénégal ?
je me demande pourquoi les accusations de corruption du pds contre le conseil cons pour 3 milliards de fcfa contre la candidature de karim wade, aucun journaliste n'en parle pour savoir où se trouve la vérité ? pourquoi la plainte de l'un des magistrats est jetée aux oubliettes comme pour empêcher la commission d'enquête parlementaire de faire son travail ? Je pense fortement qu'il y avait corruption dans cette affaire. Et le prétexte selon lequel le pds n'a pas de preuve ne tient pas
Participer à la Discussion