Propositions de loi sur les fonds spéciaux : Le ministère de la Justice recadre le député Amadou Ba et dément tout « reniement »
In the wake of a heated debate in the National Assembly, the Ministry of Justice broke its silence to issue a firm clarification. Accused by MP Amadou Ba of having acknowledged the overall conformity of the bill on special funds before resorting to a blocked vote, the Minister of Justice denounced a conflation of the procedural form of the text with its substantive content, reaffirming the executive branch's commitment to ensuring constitutional rigor.
In a clear statement released on Friday, October 2, 2026, the Ministry of Justice clarified its position following a scathing remark by Member of Parliament Amadou Ba. Ba had claimed in a widely circulated social media post that the Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals, had admitted in plenary session that the proposed law regulating special funds was perfectly legal. He concluded that the government's use of a blocked vote was solely intended to protect the political funds of the Presidency, denouncing it as a betrayal by the executive branch.
The Ministry of Justice denounces a distorted interpretation of the debates and a conflation of the text's form with its content. While the Minister of Justice did indeed declare before the National Assembly that the submitted text followed the path indicated by the Constitutional Council, this assessment concerned only the chosen legislative vehicle. After the rejection of an initial attempt in the form of an ordinary law, the members of parliament opted for an organic law. It is on this specific point, and this point alone, that the government acknowledged the Assembly's decision.
The Ministry of Justice points out that MP Amadou Ba failed to mention the immediate follow-up to the ministerial intervention, in which the Minister of Justice reiterated that this formal conformity did not preclude a careful examination of the text's content. The Minister devoted the bulk of his remarks to this, elaborating on the reasons why the proposal required substantive corrections. It is precisely for this reason that the government submitted amendments, emphasizing that one does not seek to correct a text that is already considered compliant.
Among the major inconsistencies that prompted these amendments, the Ministry of Justice first notes the fact that the text separates special appropriations from the allocation already reserved by the organic law for the Presidency of the Republic for the exercise of its constitutional functions. Furthermore, the bill fails to specify whether the head of the institution or the Minister of Finance is authorized to authorize these appropriations. Finally, the text delegates to a simple ordinary law the task of establishing implementation procedures that, by their very nature, fall within the regulatory domain.
For the Ministry of Justice, stating that a text is compliant in form is in no way equivalent to declaring it compliant in substance. Whether the confusion between these two concepts is intentional or not, the executive branch believes that the facts leave no room for ambiguity for anyone who analyzes the entirety of the ministerial speech, which is also available on the National Assembly's platforms. The government thus reaffirms that it is not defending any political agenda, but rather ensuring respect for the hierarchy of legal norms and the rigor of the legislative process in the interest of transparency.
Commentaires (6)
Participer à la Discussion
Règles de la communauté
💡 Astuce : Utilisez des emojis depuis votre téléphone ou le module emoji ci-dessous. Cliquez sur GIF pour ajouter un GIF animé. Collez un lien X/Twitter, TikTok ou Instagram pour l'afficher automatiquement.
Se connecter
Commentez avec votre profil, votre photo, et soyez averti des réponses.