Madi Djabakate: ECOWAS Togo Judgment Interpretation Confirms CADEG Article 23 Violation

• Political scientist Mohamed Madi Djabakate interprets an ECOWAS Court judgment as condemning Togo for violating Article 23 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (CADEG).
• Djabakate asserts that an unconstitutional change of government occurred in Togo on January 29, 2026, necessitating a transition to restore constitutional order.
• He argues that those responsible for the constitutional change should be excluded from both the transition and future elections.
• Djabakate maintains that the absence of direct court sanctions does not diminish the ruling's clarity, as CADEG specifies sanctioning bodies and modalities.
• He calls for collective citizen mobilization to ensure the effective implementation of the ECOWAS Court's decision.

He asserted unequivocally that the judgment found Togo in violation of Article 23 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (CADEG).

Political scientist Mohamed Madi Djabakate recently offered a definitive interpretation of a significant ruling by the ECOWAS Court of Justice concerning Togo's 2024 constitutional reform. Speaking at a public conference in Lomé, an event organized by the National Framework for Consultation for Change (CNCC), Djabakate, who also serves as honorary president of the Centre for Democratic Governance and Crisis Prevention, underscored the profound implications of the court's decision. He asserted unequivocally that the judgment found Togo in violation of Article 23 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (CADEG).

Djabakate's analysis posits that this violation signifies an unconstitutional change of government in Togo, an event he dates back to January 29, 2026. This specific dating frames the current political landscape as one requiring immediate rectification to restore constitutional order. His remarks highlight a critical juncture for Togolese governance, emphasizing that the court's findings are clear despite the absence of direct punitive measures within the judgment itself.

The political scientist clarified that the ECOWAS Court's decision, while not imposing direct sanctions, remains unambiguous in its condemnation. He pointed out that the lack of explicit penalties from the court does not diminish the ruling's clarity, as the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (CADEG) itself outlines the appropriate mechanisms for enforcement. Specifically, Article 24 of CADEG designates the entities responsible for imposing sanctions, while Articles 25 and 26 further detail the specific modalities through which these sanctions should be applied.

Djabakate's perspective stresses that the judicial finding of a CADEG Article 23 violation inherently carries weight, even if the court's role is primarily declarative rather than punitive in this instance. This distinction is crucial for understanding the broader legal and political ramifications, suggesting that the responsibility for implementing consequences lies with other bodies as stipulated by the Charter. His argument refutes any notion that the judgment is weakened by the absence of immediate, court-imposed penalties.

Given his interpretation of an unconstitutional shift in governance, Djabakate strongly advocates for the establishment of a transitional period to re-establish constitutional order in Togo. He maintains that this transition is an essential step following the alleged unconstitutional change that occurred on January 29, 2026. A key tenet of his proposal is the exclusion of those individuals and groups responsible for the constitutional reform from participating in this transitional phase.

Furthermore, Djabakate asserts that the architects of the perceived unconstitutional change should also be barred from contesting future elections. He cautioned against allowing the Togolese government or ruling parties to dictate the timeline or process for implementing the judgment, stressing that the framework for resolution is already embedded within the CADEG itself. This stance underscores a belief that the path to legitimate governance is clearly delineated by existing regional legal instruments.

Madi Djabakate also addressed criticisms suggesting that the opposition was politically exploiting the ECOWAS Court's judgment. He challenged his detractors to provide a written explanation for why the opposition's interpretation would be flawed, arguing that a straightforward reading of the ruling itself confirms his analysis. He emphasized that the judgment's content is clear and comprehensible to anyone who takes the time to review it.

Concluding his remarks, Djabakate issued a call for collective action, urging all citizens to mobilize and demand the effective implementation of the ECOWAS Court's decision. He stressed that this responsibility transcends individual political parties or associations, framing it as a shared endeavor requiring the contribution of everyone to ensure the ruling's impact is fully realized.

Lawyers advising on Togolese constitutional law or political risk should be aware of Madi Djabakate's interpretation of the ECOWAS Court judgment, which posits an unconstitutional change of government and calls for a transition, potentially influencing future legal challenges and political stability in Togo.

Source: Original reporting via regional press