Can the prosecutor act on economic lies in Senegal

The revelation that the so-called hidden debt scandal, first exposed by Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko in a September 2024 press conference, was entirely fabricated has now been conclusively established. Despite early warnings from analysts, a coordinated campaign of misinformation persisted in keeping these false claims alive in public discourse.

Legal accountability for false economic claims

With the Prime Minister now acknowledging his statements were false—and considering the severe consequences this deception had on Senegal’s credibility, international relations, and citizens’ daily lives—should the Republic’s prosecutor pursue charges against him for economic high treason, spreading false economic information, and deliberate deception? Moreover, should those who amplified this falsehood also face legal consequences?

Distinguishing political rhetoric from legal responsibility

To assess this question, we must separate political controversy from potential legal violations. The focus shouldn’t solely be on the content of the statements but on the authority of the speaker, the context in which they were made, and the real-world impact on public trust in the State.

In a recent interview on RFI and France 24, Ousmane Sonko claimed, “When I spoke on certain occasions, I spoke as a political party leader expressing my opinion.” This defense raises significant legal and institutional concerns. When accusations affect perceptions of Senegal’s economy, they cannot be dismissed as mere partisan rhetoric when they come from someone holding a government position. As Prime Minister—with constitutional authority over the Administration (Article 57 of the Constitution)—such statements inherently carry the weight of State authority and can influence foreign partners’ confidence in Senegal.

The hidden debt controversy and institutional responsibility

The timeline of the so-called hidden debt affair highlights this ambiguity. While Sonko now insists he was speaking as opposition leader without full access to State levers, his earlier statements were delivered during official government press conferences—complete with the presence of the Secretary-General of the Government, the Minister of Economy, and the Minister of Justice. These weren’t informal political remarks; they were presented as serious government disclosures, repeated in institutional settings like the Prime Minister’s office and parliamentary sessions. Under these circumstances, the statements couldn’t be reduced to ordinary political discourse—they constituted official government communication and carried the full authority of the State.

The role of the Court of Auditors in clarifying facts

To properly evaluate the legal implications, we must examine the findings of Senegal’s Court of Auditors. If the controversy stems from political interpretations rather than verified facts, we need to compare these interpretations against the Court’s official report to determine whether the accusations were warranted.

Mamadou Faye—former President of the Court of Auditors—recently stated in an interview that the word “hidden debt” does not appear anywhere in the Court’s report. While this clarification is technically correct, it arrives after the fact, long after the damage was done. For two years, Sonko—with the apparent complicity of Bassirou Diomaye Faye—led the nation into a sterile debate without any intervention from the Court. His belated clarification does little to repair the harm caused.

The Court’s report, published in February 2025, merely presented its findings using standard auditing methods. It calculated the debt-to-GDP ratio using both the TOFE (Tableau des Opérations Financières de l’État) method and budgetary accounting based on revenue-expenditure differences relative to GDP. Ideally, both approaches should have yielded consistent results—but discrepancies arose from errors in the transition tables.

The absence of the term “hidden debt” in official documents doesn’t automatically absolve the Prime Minister of responsibility. Instead, it shifts the debate: the question is no longer whether accounting anomalies existed but whether their public presentation was accurate, proportionate, and legally sound.

Consequences for Senegal’s financial credibility

This controversy hasn’t been harmless. By persisting without clear correction, it has eroded Senegal’s financial credibility, fueled economic uncertainty, and negatively impacted credit rating perceptions. Public officials bear responsibility for the foreseeable effects of their statements—especially when those statements concern debt, fiscal transparency, and the State’s ability to meet its obligations.

This analysis aligns with warnings issued in our September 28, 2024 editorial (“Sonko doesn’t love Senegal”), where we highlighted how reckless government communication on debt could:

• Undermine market confidence
• Trigger negative investor reactions
• Lead to sovereign rating downgrades
• Increase borrowing costs

These consequences, if realized, would reduce budgetary flexibility, discourage investment, and ultimately impact employment.

Demanding accountability from public figures

The Court of Auditors’ report in February 2025 didn’t call for a political scandal—it demanded administrative, budgetary, and institutional responses: correcting procedures, improving financial traceability, and clarifying responsibilities. This rigor isn’t limited to public debt. It applies to any dramatic economic claim made by a public official that could endanger State credibility without sufficient evidence.

Consider, for instance, the allegation of 1,000 billion CFA francs held in a secret account by a former regime official. When such a claim comes from a government authority, it cannot rest on unverified assertions. It must be supported by verifiable facts subject to judicial or auditing review. Otherwise, it breeds confusion, weakens institutional trust, and exposes the speaker to legal challenge.

Demanding that the prosecutor sua sponte (on their own initiative) examine these statements isn’t partisan posturing. It reflects a fundamental principle: public speech—especially from government officials—must be measured, verifiable, and aligned with institutional stability. When economic statements risk damaging the State’s financial credibility, competent institutions must determine whether they fall under ordinary political debate or require deeper legal scrutiny.

Strengthening oversight institutions

Beyond this controversy, the affair underscores the need for robust, transparent oversight institutions. The credibility of public discourse depends on these bodies producing clear, timely, and incontestable findings to inform democratic debate.

The newly appointed President of the Court of Auditors faces critical challenges in his limited term:

• Ensuring regular publication of annual reports
• Completing reforms to align with international standards
• Expanding technical expertise within the institution (e.g., petroleum engineers, infrastructure specialists, certified accountants)
• Enhancing citizen engagement and transparency
• Professionalizing auditing practices (e.g., account certification, public policy evaluation)