Togo- Qui a Payé Le Colloque ? Un Citoyen Saisit Le Patron De l’Université De Lomé

• Ricardo Agouzou sent an open letter to Professor Hounaké, challenging the scientific value and purpose of a colloquium held after an ECOWAS Court of Justice decision.
• Agouzou criticized Hounaké for defending the colloquium in the media without addressing the substance of the ECOWAS ruling, specifically Article 23 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance.
• The letter demanded public disclosure of the colloquium's funding and cost, raising questions about financial transparency.
• Agouzou argued that the colloquium cannot annul or modify the legal effects of the ECOWAS Court's decision and that a scientific event requires genuine, contradictory debate.
• The controversy highlights the need for rigorous and impartial academic engagement with regional legal instruments and court decisions, moving beyond arguments of competence or sovereignty.

Agouzou firmly stated that a colloquium serves neither as an avenue for appeal nor as an instance for judicial review.

Ricardo Agouzou has formally challenged the scientific integrity and purpose of a colloquium organized following a significant decision by the ECOWAS Court of Justice. In an open letter addressed to Professor Kossivi Hounaké, the current President of the University of Lomé, Agouzou questioned the academic value of the event and criticized the professor's public defense of it. The colloquium, held in Togo, has become a focal point of a broader legal controversy surrounding the ECOWAS Court's ruling.

Agouzou's letter specifically demands transparency regarding the event's financial aspects, calling for the public disclosure of both its funding sources and total cost. This request underscores concerns about the resources allocated to a gathering whose objectives and outcomes are now under intense scrutiny. The challenge highlights a growing demand for accountability in academic and legal discourse, particularly when it intersects with sensitive regional court decisions.

A central point of Agouzou's critique is Professor Hounaké's alleged failure to address the core substance of the ECOWAS Court's decision, particularly concerning Article 23 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance. Agouzou noted that despite Hounaké's media presence defending the colloquium, he has not engaged with the specific legal arguments or implications of the ruling. This omission is particularly striking given Hounaké's prior dismissal of a follow-up letter from the ECOWAS Court of Justice as a "null letter."

Agouzou further challenged Hounaké's criticism of Togolese academics and opposition figures for their non-participation in the colloquium. He argued that the absence of dissenting voices does not inherently validate the conclusions presented at such an event. Instead, Agouzou emphasized that organizers of any truly scientific colloquium bear the responsibility of fostering an environment conducive to genuine, contradictory debate, ensuring that diverse legal interpretations are given due consideration.

The open letter also questioned the practical utility of the colloquium itself, asserting that its conclusions possess no power to annul or alter the legal effects of the ECOWAS Court's decision. Agouzou firmly stated that a colloquium serves neither as an avenue for appeal nor as an instance for judicial review. He contended that the event's claim to offer a scientific response to a significant legal controversy is unfounded, suggesting that merely assembling academics, experts, and jurists from various nationalities does not automatically transform a predetermined intellectual stance into scientific truth.

Agouzou pointed out the apparent inconsistency in Hounaké's engagement, asking why the professor and other prominent jurists were not actively involved in presenting Togo's arguments before the ECOWAS Court of Justice when the case was initially being heard. This question gains particular relevance given that Hounaké had reportedly characterized the ECOWAS Court case as a non-event prior to the ruling. The current mobilization of resources for a colloquium, whose outcomes cannot change the legal reality, thus raises questions about its true purpose.

The controversy surrounding the Lomé colloquium underscores critical issues in the interpretation and acceptance of regional legal decisions. Agouzou highlighted Professor Hounaké's consistent arguments regarding the ECOWAS Court's alleged lack of competence, the limitations imposed by state sovereignty, and the non-absolute nature of its decisions. However, Agouzou countered that these arguments fail to address the fundamental questions raised by the ruling itself and do not justify presenting one interpretation as the sole legally acceptable viewpoint.

This legal debate, particularly concerning the ECOWAS Court decision colloquium, emphasizes that scholarly discourse must move beyond mere contestation of jurisdiction or systematic invocation of national sovereignty. It must instead engage with the pertinent provisions of international legal instruments, such as the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance, to which states have formally subscribed. The challenge by Ricardo Agouzou challenges Lomé colloquium organizers to ensure that academic engagements with legal matters are transparent, comprehensive, and genuinely contribute to a robust understanding of the law.

This article highlights the public and academic scrutiny that can follow significant legal decisions, particularly those from regional bodies like the ECOWAS Court of Justice. Lawyers should note the emphasis on transparent and scientifically rigorous engagement with legal instruments like the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, as interpretations from official or academic bodies may be challenged if perceived as lacking substance or impartiality regarding a court's ruling.

Source: Original reporting via Togo First