What the national assembly’s vote means for the special funds debate
Senegal’s political landscape shifted this Thursday, October 1, 2026, as the national assembly, led by Ousmane Sonko, voted to override government amendments on a bill concerning special funds. The proposed organic law no. 38/2026, which seeks to amend the organic law on finance laws (LOLF), was the centerpiece of the day’s plenary session. Its stated aim: to boost budget transparency and regulate the management of special funds—credits often described as the presidency’s “slush fund.”
The move marks a second attempt after the constitutional council struck down an earlier version on August 25, 2026, in decision no. 7/C/2026. The council had reminded lawmakers that the status of public credits falls exclusively under organic law. Pastef deputies returned with the correct legal vehicle, but the substantive disagreement with the executive remains unresolved.
The government’s stance: defending the president’s social role
During the session, Justice Minister Me Moussa Sarr presented the government’s position. While acknowledging the transparency goal, he proposed significant adjustments.
The first point of contention was the nature of special funds. The bill sought to create a distinct category reserved for defense, security, and diplomacy missions. The government opposed this, arguing it would ignore the social character of the Republic enshrined in Article 1 of the Constitution. In its view, the head of state must be able to mobilize these resources for national solidarity actions in response to humanitarian emergencies.
Through amendment no. 2, the executive proposed reintegrating these expenses into the global allocation for constitutional institutions under Article 14 of the LOLF. Me Sarr cited directive no. 06/2009/CM/UEMOA, which sets a restrictive list of budget allocations. Isolating special funds, he argued, would create a legal vacuum by failing to designate their authorizing officer.
The second friction point concerned lawmakers’ oversight powers under Article 70. Amendment no. 3 sought to limit the finance commission’s monitoring to the current annual management, removing the assembly’s ability to scrutinize credit use at the end of each budget year. According to the Justice Minister, such a prerogative would encroach on the exclusive competences of the court of auditors.
The executive also wanted any request to summon a minister by deputies to be automatically transmitted to the president of the Republic, in line with the assembly’s internal rules.
The road ahead: constitutional council to decide
To lock down the text, the government resorted to the blocked vote. Me Sarr requested the application of Article 82, paragraph 4 of the Constitution and Article 87 of the internal rules, which mandate a single vote on the text with only government-approved amendments. “The government does not see transparency as a constraint, but as a lever for consolidating the rule of law,” he argued, presenting the blocked vote as a constitutional tool to ensure textual coherence.
The Pastef majority did not comply. Deputies rejected all executive proposals to maintain their version of the text. The disagreement between the palace and the hemicycle is now complete.
The outcome of this standoff will be decided before the constitutional council. An organic law can only be promulgated after being declared constitutional by the council, upon referral by the president of the Republic. The text passed by the majority must therefore pass through this filter.
The government will have several arguments at its disposal: compliance with UEMOA directives, the court of auditors’ competences, and the regularity of the procedure after the rejection of a blocked vote that is nonetheless provided for by the Constitution. These are among the points the council will need to rule on.