Cotonou — Benin’s highest court has definitively closed the procedural chapter of one of the country’s most closely watched cases. On Thursday, September 24, 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal filed by lawyers for former National Police Director General Louis Philippe Houndégnon. Although the court found the appeal admissible on procedural grounds, it firmly dismissed it on the merits, thereby upholding the May 19, 2026 ruling of the appellate chamber of the Court for the Repression of Economic Offences and Terrorism (CRIET). By confirming the lower court’s jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has exhausted the defense’s extraordinary remedies and cleared the way for an imminent trial.
Last-ditch argument fails to sway judges
Present at the hearing, one of the accused’s lawyers, Fidèle Abouta, attempted a final maneuver by arguing that his client’s fundamental rights had been violated from the earliest stages of the proceedings. The arguments failed to convince the judges, bringing a definitive end to the jurisdictional standoff that had dragged on for months.
Core allegations against the former police chief
At the heart of the case, the Beninese state accuses its former police chief—who has become a particularly vocal critic of the current government—of a series of serious breaches. The prosecution specifically charges him with incitement to rebellion and civil disobedience for speeches aimed at encouraging uprising, harassment through electronic communications for posting sharp messages on social media, and violation of the duty of discretion for disclosing confidential information linked to his former duties. Initially investigated under misdemeanor charges, the case was ultimately reclassified as criminal by the CRIET, which sees it as an attempt to undermine state security.
Procedural debate ends, substantive trial begins
With this final rejection, procedural arguments give way to the substantive debate before the CRIET. The key question will now be whether the general’s statements fell within the bounds of free expression or constituted a deliberate effort to destabilize state institutions.
