Exclusive: Juan Branco’s private letter to Ousmane Sonko exposes legal and financial risks

A recently leaked correspondence reveals significant legal and financial dangers tied to confidential arrangements concerning crimes against humanity in France. Notably, the Senegalese government is not a civil party in this matter. Instead of relying on official judicial tools like letters rogatory, the approach relies on a private deal grounded in political connections, thereby undermining the credibility of international legal processes. This transforms a pursuit of justice into a series of penal infractions that could ultimately harm those involved. The potential for misuse of public funds or improper leveraging of political resources is especially high, raising serious concerns about accountability and transparency in cross-border legal transactions.

Regarding nationality and official positions, Juan Branco reminds former Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko of his expressed wish in May 2024 to represent the Republic of Senegal at the United Nations in New York. He believed his appointment would carry substantial symbolic and political weight, aligning with the new government’s “sovereignist and pan-Africanist” agenda. Despite holding French nationality, Branco asserts he would have faithfully conveyed the Senegalese president’s voice abroad. Learning through media that another diplomat was chosen, he pivots to a fresh request: obtaining Senegalese nationality via exceptional presidential powers. This naturalization would allow him to join the Senegalese bar and teach at Cheikh Anta Diop University (UCAD) in Dakar. The letter highlights an attempt to bypass republican and professional norms, as Branco seeks discretionary grants of nationality and direct intervention for bar and university entry—steps that violate equality before the law and institutional independence. His earlier claim to represent Senegal at the UN also posed a major conflict of interest and geopolitical interference risk due to his French nationality. Beyond these transgressions, the passage reveals a deep shift in his relationship with Ousmane Sonko: the lawyer positions himself as a moral creditor owing to past sacrifices (detention, abduction) and attempts to trade his activism for political and symbolic influence. Noting bitterly that he has been excluded from diplomatic circles by a government now bound by state realities and keen to preserve its sovereignist facade, Branco transforms their dynamic from a militant alliance into a veiled demand relationship, where administrative and financial favors are sought to compensate for political disillusionment.

On financial matters, Juan Branco details the sums he received. He declares a total of 15,000 euros in fees between 2023 and 2025, including 2,000 euros in reimbursement paid by his Senegalese colleague Maître Bamba Cissé during a trip to Dakar. He specifies that this money covered material expenses (plane tickets, travel) and office costs (interns, collaborators) related to the “representation mandate” entrusted by Sonko’s camp. He concludes that these sums are largely insufficient to cover the work provided, his abduction and detention costs, and the legal proceedings he faces in France. This part of the letter reveals opaque and informal accounting that exposes both friends to serious penal and ethical risks. By declaring he received 15,000 euros in fees and reimbursements through indirect channels—notably a transfer from his Senegalese colleague Maître Bamba Cissé to execute a “representation mandate” from Sonko’s camp—Juan Branco highlights the total lack of a public and legal contractual framework with the State of Senegal. If these funds turned out to be public, this transaction, conducted outside strict public procurement procedures and the State Judicial Agent, would legally resemble misappropriation of public funds. Its financial opacity flirts with non-compliance with billing and capital traceability rules. In terms of their relationship, this accounting acts as a pragmatic turning point: the lawyer, having noted in the previous section the failure of his political appointment ambitions (UN, UCAD), chooses to present the bill for his activism, emphasizing his physical sacrifices (abduction, detention) to demand financial compensation. Thus, what was presented as an ideological and selfless alliance transforms into a purely transactional and mercantile power relationship.