Read aloud⏱ ~3 min
The Jëf Jëf Alliance party, led by Talla Sylla, has formally acknowledged the Constitutional Council’s decision N° 5/C/2026, issued on Wednesday, June 17, 2026. This ruling followed a petition lodged on June 1 by eighteen opposition deputies. The initial appeal sought to overturn the National Assembly Bureau’s resolution from May 24, 2026, which confirmed Ousmane Sonko’s reinstatement as a parliamentarian. In a public statement, Jëf Jëf reiterated its unwavering commitment to the rule of law, emphasizing that all decisions from the Constitutional Council are binding on public authorities, as well as administrative and judicial bodies.
Nonetheless, the Jëf Jëf Alliance provided crucial clarifications regarding the Council’s verdict:
“1. A declaration of incompetence does not signify constitutional validation. Contrary to any potential misinformation, the Constitutional Council did not in any way endorse Ousmane Sonko’s reintegration. The esteemed ‘Sages’ merely declared themselves without jurisdiction to assess the legality of the act. As a prominent legal expert rightly observed, the high court opted for the ‘comfort of incompetence,’ thereby sidestepping the fundamental constitutional question concerning incompatibility and the prerequisites for holding a parliamentary mandate.”
“1. A declaration of incompetence does not signify constitutional validation. Contrary to any potential misinformation, the Constitutional Council did not in any way endorse Ousmane Sonko’s reintegration. The esteemed ‘Sages’ merely declared themselves without jurisdiction to assess the legality of the act. As a prominent legal expert rightly observed, the high court opted for the ‘comfort of incompetence,’ thereby sidestepping the fundamental constitutional question concerning incompatibility and the prerequisites for holding a parliamentary mandate.”
2. A clear path towards administrative justice
“Far from concluding the matter, the Constitutional Council’s action holds significant legal weight. In its deliberations, the Council explicitly characterized the National Assembly Bureau’s decision as an ‘internal administrative act,’ asserting that it does not directly pertain to the electoral process. By doing so, the constitutional judge itself indicated the appropriate jurisdiction for this case: the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court.”
3. The call for continued legal action
“The Jëf Jëf Alliance believes there is no immediate danger as long as the law remains our guide and the courtroom our battleground. Where some might be tempted by political boycotts or alternative forms of struggle, we choose the strength of the law.”
Consequently, Jëf Jëf formally urges the petitioning deputies not to concede, but instead to promptly file an appeal for abuse of power (Recours pour Excès de Pouvoir) before the Supreme Court. Currently, only parliamentarians possess the necessary legal standing to pursue this ultimate battle for the integrity of the National Assembly. The struggle for the Republic is a protracted legal and political endeavor.”
Ultimately, the Jëf Jëf Alliance pledged to remain vigilant, steadfast, and supportive of all democrats who oppose institutional power plays.
Follow this sectionFind our stories in Feedly, Inoreader…
You may also like
Will Benin’s UCESIF gambit in Bucharest pay off for francophone social dialogue?
Niger’s sovereignty paradox: can the junta’s UN rhetoric survive the SOMAÏR and SONIDEP collapse?
South Africa’s mass shooting crisis: can Johannesburg and Cape Town ever feel safe again?
Senegal’s December 2, 2026: will Diomaye Faye dissolve parliament or play the long game?
Senegal’s 2026 budget revision: can Dakar still rescue its growth and investment agenda?
