Senegalese Assembly: Tafsir Thioye Challenges Legality of Article 37 Exam

• Tafsir Thioye, a non-affiliated deputy in the Senegalese Assembly, challenged the legality of the examination of article 37 amendment proposal (number 33/2026) during a plenary session on Monday.
• Thioye argued that the Assembly's internal rules had not been regularly modified and certain provisions did not allow for examination of proposals during intersession periods.
• The dispute highlights potential challenges to the legitimacy of legislative proceedings in Senegal, particularly with regards to examination of constitutional amendments.

Thioye requested that debates be halted due to alleged irregularities in the parliamentary procedure, citing the need for modification of the Assembly's internal rules and certain provisions that do not allow for examination of proposals during intersession periods.

Tafsir Thioye, a non-affiliated deputy in the Senegalese Assembly, challenged the legality of the examination of article 37 amendment proposal (number 33/2026) during a plenary session on Monday. The proposal aims to declare the president's assets upon entry and exit from office. Thioye requested that debates be halted due to alleged irregularities in the parliamentary procedure, citing the need for modification of the Assembly's internal rules and certain provisions that do not allow for examination of proposals during intersession periods.

In his argument, Thioye pointed out that the Assembly's internal rules had not been regularly modified, specifically referencing the amendment of article 118. This claim regarding the lack of modification of article 118 is outdated, as organic law n°10/2026 modifying article 118 was adopted on May 8, 2026. He claimed that this modification required submission to the Constitutional Council, promulgation, and publication in the official journal before taking effect. Thioye also stated that he had verified with the Constitutional Council whether they had been notified.

The deputy non-inscrit further invoked article 69 of the internal rules regarding examination of proposals, which stipulates that these texts must be examined during the session in which they were deposited or at the latest during the next ordinary session, unless specific provisions apply. He requested a postponement of debates, warning that the Assembly would be operating 'illegally' if it continued without addressing these procedural questions.

The Senegalese Constitution (article 37) and the Assembly's internal rules provide the framework for examining constitutional amendments. The proposal in question aims to modify article 37, which deals with the president's assets declaration upon entry and exit from office. Thioye's argument hinges on the need for modification of the Assembly's internal rules, specifically article 118, before proceeding with examination.

The Constitutional Council plays a crucial role in ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions. However, Thioye's assertion that the amendment of article 118 requires submission to the Constitutional Council and subsequent promulgation and publication raises questions about the procedural requirements for examining constitutional amendments.

The Assembly's internal rules (article 69) also come into play, as they dictate when proposals can be examined during intersession periods. Thioye's invocation of these rules underscores the importance of adhering to parliamentary procedure in examining constitutional amendments.

The dispute highlights potential challenges to the legitimacy of legislative proceedings in Senegal, particularly with regards to examination of constitutional amendments. The case raises questions about the procedural requirements for modifying the Constitution and the role of the Constitutional Council in ensuring compliance.

Lawyers and compliance officers should pay attention to this development, as it may have implications for future legislative actions in Senegal. The controversy surrounding article 37 amendment proposal (number 33/2026) serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to parliamentary procedure and constitutional provisions when examining constitutional amendments.

Lawyers and compliance officers should watch for potential challenges to the legitimacy of legislative proceedings in Senegal, particularly with regards to the examination of constitutional amendments.

Source: Original reporting via Le Débat