Пан-африканские организации призвали к точному толкованию решения суда ЭКОВАС по конституционной реформе Того

News Follow Us on Google September 8, 2026 by Facing conflicting interpretations of the ECOWAS Court of Justice judgment on Togo’s constitutional reform, several Pan-African civil society organisations have called for a return to the actual wording of the decision. The organisations said the legal scope of the judgment should be distinguished from the political interpretations being attached to it, while defending the right to democratic debate. The controversy centres on Togo’s constitutional reform of May 6, 2024, with questions arising over what exactly the ECOWAS Court ruled, the extent of its legal implications and what consequences can legitimately be drawn from the judgment for Togo’s new constitutional order. The Pan-African Network of Human Rights Organisations and Civil Society Associations addressed the issue during a press briefing in Lomé on Thursday, September 3, 2026. Several member organisations presented a statement on Judgment ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/26, delivered by the ECOWAS Court of Justice on January 29, 2026, as well as the various interpretations of the ruling in Togo’s political debate. Barrister Bertin K. Amegah-Atsyon, Coordinator of the Network, said the priority should be to examine the substance of the judicial decision before drawing political conclusions from it. The organisations said there must be a clear distinction between what the judgment establishes as a matter of law and what political actors claim it means. “There is what the judgment says, and there is what the memorandum would like it to say,” the statement asserted. The Network said the debate should therefore be anchored on the text of the judgment, particularly its operative part and actual legal effects, rather than political interpretations surrounding it. What the Judgment Does Not Say The Pan-African CSOs maintained that the ECOWAS Court did not annul Togo’s Constitution of May 6, 2024. They also said the court did not order the automatic reinstatement of the 1992 Constitution or invalidate the institutions established under the country’s new constitutional framework. “The Court neither annulled the Constitution of 6 May 2024, nor ordered a transition, nor imposed a national dialogue,” the Network recalls. This clarification lies at the heart of its argument. For the signatory organisations, a judicial decision may naturally be commented on, criticised or debated. However, its interpretation cannot legitimately go beyond what its operative part actually establishes. The Network therefore considers that a shift has occurred between the legal scope of the judgment and some of the political conclusions being drawn from it. Its intervention is intended precisely to restore that boundary. Read Also: Why we raided Lagos compound, by Task Force chief  The approach is all the more institutional in that the organisations reaffirm their commitment to the ECOWAS Court of Justice and to Community law. They therefore challenge neither the jurisdiction of the regional court nor the authority of its decisions. They maintain, however, that a judgment must be interpreted within the limits of what it actually decides as a matter of law. The Question of Constituent Power The second central point raised by the CSOs concerns constitutional sovereignty. For the Pan-African Network, the decision of the Community Court cannot be interpreted as granting it the power to directly repeal or reinstate a national Constitution. “The power to amend the Constitution falls within national sovereignty and belongs exclusively to the Togolese people and their institutions,” the statement maintains. The distinction drawn is therefore between, on the one hand, the review exercised by a Community court in light of a State’s regional commitments and, on the other hand, the exercise of constituent power within the national legal order. On this basis, the CSOs consider that the judgment cannot, in itself, be presented as a decision annulling or invalidating the Constitution of 6 May 2024. They do not, however, conclude that the reform should be shielded from criticism. On the contrary, the Network acknowledges that the new institutional framework may continue to give rise to differing assessments. What it seeks to do is distinguish political opposition to a reform from the question of its legal existence. Neither Imposed Unanimity nor a Declared Crisis It is also on this ground that the Network seeks to avoid a binary reading of its position. Defending institutional stability does not, in its view, mean denying political parties, citizens or civil society organisations the right to challenge a reform. Conversely, the existence of political disagreements would not, by itself, be sufficient to establish a situation of institutional breakdown. “Democracy cannot be reduced to the assertion of a single interpretation of the national reality,” the statement insists. The organisations therefore defend the principle of open disagreement, but want it to take place within a framework in which legal facts are not confused with partisan positions. This is probably where their intervention takes on its most political dimension: rather than calling for an end to the controversy, they are calling for its terms to be clarified. Once the legal positions have been set out, the Network argues for moving beyond a permanent power struggle. For the signatory organisations, Togo would benefit from keeping channels of consultation open between public authorities, political parties and civil society. Differences of opinion, they argue, can be legitimate without becoming a source of destabilisation. “Lasting peace does not arise from the absence of disagreements, but from the willingness to resolve them through dialogue,” the Network states. It therefore calls for stronger citizen participation, consultation and the rule of law, while acknowledging that a reform can be supported in principle and, at the same time, improved in its implementation. This approach enables the CSOs to defend a position intended to be balanced: political commentary should not be substituted for law, but neither should law be substituted for political debate. In its conclusion, the Network summarises its position by calling for the constitutional reform to be assessed “as a whole”, in light of Togolese law, Community law and the country’s own realities. Under the coordination of Barrister Bertin K. AMEGAH-ATSYON, the organisations advocate both institutional stability and a vibrant democracy. Through this collective statement, their message ultimately comes down to a simple requirement: before drawing political consequences from a judicial ruling, one must first establish precisely what it decides as a matter of law. It is on this ground — that of law, open disagreement and dialogue — that the Pan-African CSOs now want to reposition Togo’s constitutional debate. TAGS: ECOWAS Pan-African 📢 ADVERTISEMENT DISCLAIMER: Links above are sponsored posts. The Nation assumes no liability or responsibility for the claims, products, or services offered by third-party advertisers. Proceed with discretion. Abuja doctor reveals a unique way to permanently cure weak erection, small and shameful manhood, and infertility issues without side effects within a short period. Click now to see!! NEWS UPDATE: Nigerians can now earn as much as $15,000- $25,000 with premium domains. You decide if you want payment in Naira or US Dollars. Be sure to ask for evidence and proof of people benefitting daily from this. CLICK HERE TO START. Stay informed and ahead of the curve! Follow The Nation Newspaper on WhatsApp for real-time updates, breaking news, and exclusive content. Don't miss a headline — join now! Join The Nation Channel Get instant breaking news and exclusive updates right on your feed! Subscribe to The Nation Newspaper Telegram channel and never miss a headline. Join The Nation on Telegram