Benin’s supreme court ends ex-police chief Houndégnon’s cassation appeal, trial now inevitable

Cotonou — Benin’s highest judicial body has definitively closed the procedural chapter of one of the nation’s most closely watched cases. On Thursday, September 24, 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal filed by the lawyers of former Director General of the National Police, General Louis Philippe Houndégnon. Although the court declared the appeal admissible in form, it firmly dismissed it on the merits, thereby upholding the ruling issued on May 19, 2026, by the appellate chamber of the Court for the Repression of Economic Offences and Terrorism (CRIET).

Supreme Court validates lower court’s jurisdiction, clearing path to trial

By confirming the jurisdiction of the lower judges, the Supreme Court has exhausted the defense’s extraordinary remedies and paved the way for an imminent trial. Present at the hearing, one of the accused’s lawyers, Me Fidèle Abouta, attempted a final maneuver by arguing that his client’s fundamental rights had been violated from the earliest hours of the proceedings. These arguments failed to persuade the judges, bringing a definitive end to the jurisdictional standoff that had persisted for several months.

State’s allegations against former police chief

At the heart of the case, the Beninese state accuses its former police chief, who has become a particularly vocal critic of the current government, of a series of serious offenses. The prosecution specifically charges him with incitement to rebellion and civil disobedience for speeches aimed at encouraging uprising, harassment through electronic communications for disseminating sharp messages on social media, and violation of the duty of discretion for disclosing confidential information linked to his former duties.

From correctional to criminal: CRIET reclassifies charges

Initially investigated under correctional classification, the case was ultimately reclassified as criminal by the CRIET, which views it as an attempt to undermine state security.

Procedural battles end, substantive debate begins

With this unappealable rejection, procedural arguments fade to make way for the substantive debate before the CRIET. The key question now is whether the general’s statements fell within freedom of expression or constituted a deliberate effort to destabilize institutions.

By Claire Mvondo — Security and State Policy Expert