Togolese authorities swiftly responded to the ECOWAS Court of Justice’s January 29 decision, which labeled the nation’s March 2024 constitutional revision an « unconstitutional change of government ». This Sunday, the government issued a strong rebuttal, asserting that the regional judicial body had unequivocally exceeded its jurisdiction.
« no competence for constitutional review »
In its initial official statement, the Togolese government clarified the actual powers of the Abuja-based regional institution:
« The Court possesses no authority to review the constitutionality of domestic law, nor is it entitled to pass judgment on a national constituent power, » the official communiqué emphasized.
The executive branch reiterated that while the regional Court is mandated to oversee human rights compliance and breaches of community law, it cannot usurp the role of a sovereign state’s Constitutional Court.
Furthermore, authorities pointed out that the only regional instrument designed to govern constitutional amendments — the Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance — can only be invoked by member states themselves, not by private individuals.
flaws in applicant standing and absence of violations
The government highlighted several significant weaknesses in the judicial process that led to the Court’s ruling:
Inadmissibility of certain petitioners: The Court itself dismissed the Association of Torture Victims in Togo (ASVITTO) and the ADDI political party due to insufficient proof of legal registration.
No infringement on participation rights: The regional court found no evidence of Togo failing to uphold its citizens’ right to participate in public affairs.
Lack of substantiating evidence: The executive condemned the Court’s qualifications, arguing they were based on speculative intentions without any supporting documentation to prove an alleged « anti-democratic agenda ».
no impact on current constitutional order
From Lomé’s perspective, the Court’s own conclusion implicitly validates the new fundamental text: the judicial body declined to mandate the withdrawal of the 2024 constitutional law, a demand explicitly made by the applicants, and ordered no financial compensation.
« No obligation to dismantle the existing constitutional order arises from this, » stated the authorities, who reiterated that the reform establishing the 5th Republic was adopted following an open public debate and extensive consultations with the nation’s vital forces.