Togo’s government disputes ECOWAS court’s verdict on constitutional changes

The Togolese authorities responded swiftly to the January 29 ruling by the ECOWAS Court of Justice, which declared the country’s March 2024 constitutional revision an “unconstitutional government change.”

The government rejected the verdict outright this past Sunday, arguing that the regional institution had overstepped its legal boundaries. In an official statement, Lomé emphasized that the Abuja-based court lacks the authority to assess national constitutional matters or interfere with a sovereign nation’s constituent power.

Court overreached its judicial mandate

In its first formal response, the government clarified the scope of the regional court’s actual jurisdiction. A statement released by the executive stressed:

“The Court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of domestic laws or to judge the decisions of a national constituent power,” the communiqué firmly declared.

The authorities reiterated that while the ECOWAS Court can examine human rights violations and breaches of community law, it cannot replace or override a sovereign state’s constitutional court. They also pointed out that the region’s Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance—the only instrument regulating constitutional revisions—can only be invoked by member states, not by individuals or private entities.

Procedural flaws in the legal challenge

The Togolese government identified critical deficiencies in the case that led to the court’s decision:

• Rejected plaintiffs: The ECOWAS Court itself dismissed the Togolese Association of Torture Victims (ASVITTO) and the ADDI political party for failing to provide documented legal registration.
• No evidence of participatory rights violations: The regional judges found no breaches of citizens’ rights to engage in public affairs.
• Lack of substantiated claims: Lomé condemned the ruling for relying on speculative accusations without any supporting evidence of an alleged anti-democratic agenda.

Constitutional reform remains legally intact

According to the government, the court’s own conclusions validate the legitimacy of the 2024 constitutional changes. Officials noted that the judges declined to annul the new constitutional law as requested by the plaintiffs, and no financial reparations were ordered.

The authorities highlighted that the reform, which established the Fifth Republic, emerged from an inclusive public debate and broad consultations with national stakeholders. A statement from the executive concluded:

“No obligation arises for the current constitutional order to be dismantled,” they affirmed, underscoring that the process adhered to democratic standards.