Togo’s authorities have swiftly responded. Following the ECOWAS Court of Justice’s ruling on January 29 — which characterized Togo’s March 2024 constitutional revision as an “unconstitutional change of government” — the government issued a firm rebuttal this Sunday. For the Togolese executive, the regional judicial body unequivocally overstepped its mandate.
“No jurisdiction over constitutional review”
In its initial official statement, the Togolese government set the record straight regarding the actual prerogatives of the Abuja-based regional institution:
“The Court possesses no jurisdiction to control the constitutionality of domestic law, nor does it have the authority to judge a national constituent power,” the official communiqué emphatically declared.
The executive reiterated that while the regional Court is empowered to monitor human rights compliance and breaches of community law, it cannot supersede the Constitutional Court of a sovereign state.
Furthermore, authorities clarified that the sole regional instrument designed to govern constitutional revisions (the Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance) can only be invoked by the member states themselves, not by private individuals.
Flaws in applicant standing and absence of violations
The government highlighted several significant weaknesses in the process that led to the Court’s decision:
Inadmissibility of certain applicants: The Court itself dismissed the Association of Torture Victims in Togo (ASVITTO) and the ADDI political party due to insufficient proof of legal registration.
No violation of participation rights: The regional tribunal found no shortcomings on Togo’s part concerning its citizens’ right to participate in public affairs.
Lack of evidence: The executive condemned the Court’s qualifications as being based on speculative intentions, lacking any verifiable documentation to substantiate an alleged “anti-democratic design.”
No impact on the current constitutional order
From Lomé’s perspective, the logical conclusion drawn by the Court itself confirms the applicability of the new fundamental text: the tribunal declined to order the withdrawal of the 2024 constitutional law, a demand explicitly made by the applicants, and did not award any financial reparations.
“No obligation to undo the existing constitutional order arises from this,” the authorities specified, emphasizing that the reform establishing the 5th Republic was adopted after an open public debate and extensive consultations with the nation’s vital forces.
