On July 1st, the Supreme Court, sitting in joint chambers, had examined the appeal filed by Ousmane Sonko’s lawyers in the case against Mame Mbaye Niang. In its decision, the high court had rejected the request from the leader of Pastef, causing anger and confusion among his supporters. The newspaper Les Échos sheds light on the true reasons behind the Court’s decision to reject the appeal.
Anger was at its peak in Ousmane Sonko’s camp on July 1st, after the Supreme Court confirmed, in joint chambers, its decision to reject the appeal filed by his lawyers. There was a sense of incomprehension among the petitioner’s supporters regarding this legal outcome. However, as explained by Les Échos, the ruling of the Supreme Court’s chamber presidents is now available and helps to understand why the high court ruled in this way.
The lawyers of the current Prime Minister had invoked a “procedural error” in their appeal, claiming that the contested ruling was flawed. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating in its final ruling that: “under the guise of a procedural error, the grievance merely seeks to challenge the Court’s reasoning and have the case retried. It follows that it is not well-founded.” In other words, notes Les Échos, the defense was seeking to bring the case back to the substance, hoping for a referral to an appellate court.
Four arguments raised by the defense
In reality, four grievances were presented by Ousmane Sonko’s lawyers. The first one concerned a “procedural error.” The lawyers argued that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court had declared the unconstitutionality exception of Article 260 of the Penal Code inadmissible. According to them, by equating this exception to a cassation ground, the Criminal Chamber had violated Article 91 of the organic law on the Supreme Court and Article 22 of the organic law establishing the Constitutional Council, which require the judge to refer to the latter when a dispute depends on it.
However, the joint chambers considered that “the Court, which did not refer the Constitutional Council to an unconstitutionality exception raised in a late-filed memorandum, did not commit a procedural error within the meaning of the aforementioned article 52.” In other words, explains Les Échos, the defense memorandum was filed late.
As for the second, third, and fourth grievances, they related to other aspects. The lawyers argued, in particular, that the Court had issued a cassation without referral, in violation of Article 53 of the organic law on the Supreme Court, whereas referral is mandatory in case of a violation of the law by the lower court judges. They also criticized the Court for a lack of normative control over the alleged “misrepresentation” of the service of process on April 12, 2023. Finally, they contested the provision ordering the execution of the ruling at the initiative of the Prosecutor General, a provision which, according to them, is not provided for by law.
After examining these four arguments, the high court, sitting in joint chambers, concluded that, under the guise of a procedural error, the defense was only seeking to challenge the Court’s reasoning and obtain a new judgment. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.
