Constitutional Review Analysis: What are the key takeaways from the appeal filed by President Diomaye Faye before the seven judges?

The Constitutional Council has been asked to rule on a constitutional revision. In a legal brief, El Amath Thiam, president of the NGO Justice Without Borders, analyzes the request filed by the President of the Republic on July 6th. He addresses several points, including the reference to a 2024 legal precedent, an examination of the case file, and the question of the Constitutional Council's jurisdiction to rule on this matter. Here is his legal analysis.

"The President of the Republic has officially referred the matter to the Constitutional Council to challenge the regularity of the procedure for adopting the law revising the Constitution.

Contrary to what some might think, the legal challenge does not concern the content of the constitutional amendment, but rather the manner in which this law was adopted by the National Assembly. In parliamentary law, this is known as a "blocked vote".

Indeed, the President believes that the procedure followed is contrary to Article 82, paragraph 4 (last paragraph) of the Constitution, which essentially states that: The government may request that the National Assembly vote in a single vote on all or part of a text; in this case, only the amendments proposed or accepted by the government are put to a vote; the other amendments are not included in the text submitted to the vote. In other words, the other amendments are rejected.

Review of the documents in the file

It is precisely on the interpretation and application of this provision that the appeal of the President of the Republic seems to focus, which he considers to be a substantial provision whose respect is mandatory.

The appeal, filed on July 6, 2026, was registered under number 6/C/26 and is accompanied by 16 documents.

including:

1 The various exchanges between the President of the Republic and the President of the National Assembly;

2. Government amendments;

3 The minutes and recordings of the plenary session;

4 As well as several previous decisions of the Constitutional Council, notably those of 2006, 2024 and elsewhere, invoked in support of the argument.

The President of the Republic also requested that the case be examined under emergency procedure, within a period of eight (8) days.

Note: It is important to clarify that this receipt does not mean that the appeal is well-founded. It merely confirms that the Constitutional Council has received and registered the request. It is now up to the Council to determine whether the procedure for adopting the law did indeed violate Article 82, paragraph 4 of the Constitution and, if so, to draw all the legal consequences.

In this context, the legal debate focuses less on what was voted on than on how it was voted on. "It is precisely this question of the procedure's conformity to the Constitution" that the Constitutional Council is now called upon to decide in the near future.

Is the Constitutional Council competent?

Clearly, yes, if we refer to its decision, which has become a landmark or bold legal precedent, No. 1/C/2024 of February 15, 2024, in which the Constitutional Council affirms in paragraph 6 the fundamental principle that:

"The scope of the Constitutional Council's competence in reviewing the constitutionality of laws is limited, with regard to constitutional revision, to verifying compliance with the conditions for adoption, approval, and the temporal and substantive limits that the Constitution itself sets for the exercise of the powers of the constituent power;"