Government counters ECOWAS court decision on constitutional reform
The Togolese government swiftly responded to the West African regional court’s ruling issued on January 29, which labeled the March 2024 constitutional revision as an « unconstitutional change of government ». Authorities in Lomé firmly rejected the decision, asserting that the Abuja-based court had overstepped its authority.
Constitutional oversight beyond ECOWAS court’s jurisdiction
In an official statement, the government clarified the actual mandate of the regional institution. The executive emphasized that while the ECOWAS Court of Justice can oversee human rights compliance and violations of community law, it lacks the power to assess or invalidate national constitutional processes. The communiqué stressed:
The Court has no authority to review the constitutionality of domestic laws or to scrutinize the actions of a sovereign nation’s constituent power.
The authorities further noted that the regional framework governing constitutional amendments—the Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance—can only be invoked by member states, not by individuals or private entities.
Procedural flaws in the court’s decision
The government highlighted critical shortcomings in the proceedings that led to the ruling:
-
Disqualified plaintiffs: The court itself dismissed submissions from certain applicants, including the Association of Victims of Torture in Togo (ASVITTO) and the ADDI political party, due to lack of legal registration proof.
-
No evidence of democratic rights violations: The regional judges found no breaches of citizens’ rights to participate in public affairs during the constitutional process.
-
Unsubstantiated claims: Authorities condemned the ruling for relying on speculative accusations without any documentary evidence to support allegations of an anti-democratic agenda.
Ruling has no effect on current constitutional order
Lomé underscored that the court’s own conclusion reinforces the validity of the 2024 constitutional law. The judges declined to annul the amendment—despite explicit demands from plaintiffs—and did not award any financial reparations. The government pointed out:
« The decision imposes no obligation to reverse the existing constitutional order », noting that the reform establishing the Fifth Republic emerged from an open national debate and broad consultations with civic and political stakeholders.
