Special credits: "The judge closed a legal avenue but not the reform" (Moussa Mbaye)

On August 25, 2026, the Constitutional Council declared inadmissible draft law no. 36/2026 aimed at regulating special appropriations. This decision puts an end to the major disagreement between the government and the National Assembly regarding the financial and legal management of these funds, which were previously beyond any oversight.

Referred to the Constitution by the government under Article 83, paragraph 2, the Executive argued—in a press release—that several provisions of the text encroached upon its regulatory domain, guaranteed by Articles 67 and 76 of the fundamental law. This position was upheld by the Constitutional Court, which reiterated the strict hierarchy of norms in matters of public finance. The Court emphasized that an ordinary law could not legally regulate a matter reserved either to regulatory power or to organic law.

For sociologist Moussa Mbaye, the judge's decision closes a specific legal avenue but does not eliminate the need for reform. According to him, on a political level, the issue of special appropriations has now moved beyond the narrow confines of specialists to become a genuine subject of public debate. While the confidentiality of certain public expenditures remains legitimate in the eyes of the public, the demand for transparency and accountability is more crucial than ever.

"From a legal standpoint, the Constitutional Council reiterates that not everything can be resolved by any instrument. And that in the hierarchy of constitutional norms, some rules fall under the organic law that regulates public finances. Others fall under regulatory power. Therefore, an ordinary law - as had been initiated - cannot take care of all this," it states.

The guest on Sud FM's Sunday program "Objection" added: "The council's decision doesn't say that the management of these funds must remain opaque. It simply states that the path taken by Parliament was not the right one. The judge closed a legal avenue, but not the reform." Therefore, the member of the "Sursaut Citoyen" movement urges Parliament to reconsider its proposal, but this time, "while respecting the relevant rules."