Professeur Hounaké: Cour CEDEAO Lacks Competence on Togo Reform

• Professor Kossi Hounaké, a public law specialist, disputes the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court of Justice regarding Togo's 2024 constitutional reform.
• Hounaké argues the court's authority is limited to human rights, and it found no violations in the Togolese case.
• The ECOWAS Court's January 29, 2026 ruling characterized the reform as an "unconstitutional change of government" but did not annul the constitution or sanction Togo.
• Hounaké asserts that national sovereignty prevents external entities from definitively challenging a state's constitutional decisions.
• He dismissed a follow-up letter requesting the ruling's application as "empty," citing Articles 23 and 24 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.

There are domains of sovereignty that no state in the world allows to be challenged by an external entity. The decision of a court of justice, whatever it may be, is not gospel.

Professor Kossi Hounaké, a distinguished public law specialist and the current president of the University of Lomé, recently voiced strong objections to the authority and scope of a ruling issued by the Cour de justice de la CEDEAO concerning Togo's 2024 constitutional reform. Speaking on Victoire FM on November 2nd, following an academic colloquium, Hounaké critically assessed the regional court's decision, particularly its implications for national sovereignty and the enforcement of its judgments. His remarks highlight a significant debate within legal circles regarding the boundaries of regional judicial power when it intersects with domestic constitutional processes.

Hounaké's opinion directly challenges the notion that the regional court possesses broad jurisdiction over constitutional matters. He argues that the mandate of such a tribunal should be strictly confined to human rights issues, encompassing civil, economic, and political freedoms. In his view, the Cour de justice de la CEDEAO overstepped its bounds by commenting on the constitutional reform, especially since its own findings did not identify any violations of human rights within the Togolese context. This perspective underscores a fundamental tension between regional integration efforts and the preservation of state autonomy.

The core of Professor Hounaké's argument centers on the perceived limitations of the Compétence Cour CEDEAO. He firmly asserts that the court's purview is exclusively restricted to matters of human rights. According to Hounaké, if the court's investigation into the Togolese situation did not uncover any human rights infringements, then its involvement should have concluded at that point. He characterized the court's ruling as "laconic" and stated that, since it found no human rights violations, "The Court said in the case of Togo that human rights were not violated. It should have stopped there." This Kossi Hounaké opinion suggests a narrow interpretation of the court's role, contrasting with its broader pronouncements.

The specific ruling in question, rendered by the Cour de justice de la CEDEAO on January 29, 2026, and made public in June, described Togo's Réforme constitutionnelle Togo 2024 as an "unconstitutional change of government." Despite this characterization, the court notably refrained from annulling the Constitution of May 6, 2024, and did not impose any sanctions against the Togolese state. This outcome, in Hounaké's view, further supports his contention that the court's reach is limited, particularly when it comes to dictating internal constitutional arrangements or imposing punitive measures on a sovereign nation. The lack of concrete enforcement mechanisms or annulment powers, even after a critical finding, reinforces the debate around the actual scope of the regional court's authority.

Echoing sentiments often expressed by Togolese authorities, Professeur Hounaké strongly emphasized the principle of national sovereignty as a critical barrier to the definitive enforcement of regional court decisions. He articulated that the judgments of an external judicial body cannot be considered absolute or final when they impinge upon core areas of state sovereignty. Hounaké stated unequivocally that "There are domains of sovereignty that no state in the world allows to be challenged by an external entity. The decision of a court of justice, whatever it may be, is not gospel." This powerful assertion underscores the deep-seated belief that certain governmental functions, particularly constitutional amendments, remain exclusively within the domestic sphere.

This perspective directly addresses the Arrêt CEDEAO Togo souveraineté debate, suggesting that while regional courts play a role in fostering rule of law, their authority does not supersede a nation's fundamental right to self-governance in all matters. The implication is that even if a regional court issues a ruling, its implementation can be legitimately resisted if it is perceived to infringe upon a state's sovereign prerogatives. This argument forms a crucial part of the broader discussion surrounding the balance between regional legal frameworks and national independence, especially concerning sensitive political reforms like the Réforme constitutionnelle Togo 2024.

Professeur Hounaké also commented on a recent follow-up letter dispatched to the Ministry of Justice, which sought the application of the ECOWAS Court's ruling. He dismissed this communication as "empty," indicating his belief in its lack of legal force or practical consequence. His assessment stems from a specific interpretation of regional legal instruments, particularly the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.

He specifically referenced Articles 23 and 24 of this Charter, asserting that these provisions do not grant the Cour de justice de la CEDEAO any authority to compel a member state to reverse or modify a constitutional change it has already enacted. This legal interpretation provides the basis for his dismissal of the enforcement letter, suggesting that the regional court lacks the explicit mandate to interfere with a state's constitutional amendments, even if it deems them problematic. This highlights the ongoing challenge of enforcing regional judicial decisions when they clash with a member state's constitutional autonomy and its interpretation of its sovereign rights.

Lawyers advising on Togolese constitutional law or regional legal frameworks should note the ongoing debate regarding the ECOWAS Court's jurisdiction and the enforceability of its decisions, particularly when they touch upon state sovereignty and constitutional reforms. This perspective from a prominent legal scholar highlights potential challenges to the implementation of regional court rulings in domestic law, impacting legal risk assessments and strategic advice for clients operating in the region.

Source: Original reporting via Victoire FM.