Can the prosecutor investigate economic lies in Senegal

The revelation that the so-called hidden debt scandal, first exposed by Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko in a press conference on September 26, 2024, was entirely fabricated has now been conclusively established. While some had warned of its dubious nature from the outset, a coordinated effort to amplify these claims kept the narrative alive in public discourse.

accountability for public statements with national consequences

Now that Sonko has admitted to spreading misinformation—and given the severe repercussions this has had on Senegal’s credibility, international relations, and the daily lives of its citizens—could the Republic’s Prosecutor take legal action against him for economic treason, dissemination of false economic news, and deception? Might the Prosecutor also pursue those who amplified the falsehoods?

The answer requires separating political debate from its legal consequences. The issue is not merely the content of the statements but the authority of the speaker, the context in which they were made, and the tangible impact they had on public and investor confidence in the State.

The Prime Minister’s televised remarks on RFI and France 24, where he claimed to have spoken as a party leader rather than an official, introduce a critical legal dilemma. Statements that undermine trust in Senegal’s economy cannot be treated as ordinary political rhetoric when they come from someone holding executive office. According to Article 57 of Senegal’s Constitution, the Prime Minister wields significant administrative power and is expected to act in the national interest. By framing his comments as partisan, Sonko seeks to distance himself from responsibility—yet the institutional setting in which the debt issue was presented tells a different story.

On the day of the press conference, the government’s top officials were present: the Prime Minister, the Secretary-General of the Government, the Minister of Economy, and the Minister of Justice. The debt issue was not merely raised; it was presented with grave urgency in multiple institutional forums, including a press conference at the Prime Minister’s office and before the National Assembly. In such a context, the statements transcended partisan politics—they became public declarations of the Prime Minister, carrying the weight and credibility of the State itself.

the role of the court of auditors in clarifying the record

To assess whether legal action is warranted, we must examine the findings of the Court of Auditors, which has consistently stated that no official report ever mentions the phrase hidden debt. Former President of the Court, Mamadou Faye, emphasized this point in a recent statement, effectively exposing the political misuse of technical financial oversight. For two years, the public was led to believe in a scandal of historic proportions—yet no such scandal was ever documented in the Court’s formal assessments.

Faye’s intervention serves as a stark reminder: when institutions entrusted with fiscal oversight fail to corroborate explosive claims, the responsibility for spreading unverified allegations falls squarely on those who made them. The Court’s findings were based on rigorous, internationally recognized methodologies—including the Tofe (Tableau des opérations financières de l’État) and budgetary ratio methods. Had these been applied correctly, discrepancies would have been identified and addressed through administrative and institutional channels, not through sensationalist rhetoric.

The persistent repetition of false claims—without verification or correction—has had real consequences. It has eroded investor confidence, complicated access to international financing, and weakened Senegal’s financial reputation. Legal accountability must therefore consider not only the intent behind the statements but their foreseeable impact on the country’s economic stability.

legal principles and the burden of public speech

This controversy underscores a broader principle: public statements by government officials carry a heightened responsibility. When such statements concern national debt, fiscal integrity, or economic policy, they must be grounded in verifiable evidence and subjected to institutional scrutiny. The alternative—spreading unverified allegations that destabilize public trust—exposes officials to both political and legal consequences.

The case also raises questions about the role of oversight institutions. The Court of Auditors must continue to strengthen its credibility by ensuring timely, transparent, and comprehensible reporting. Its findings should guide public debate rather than be distorted for political ends. At the same time, the government must reinforce mechanisms for internal accountability, ensuring that economic discourse remains anchored in fact rather than speculation.

Looking ahead, the new leadership of the Court of Auditors faces a critical mandate. Over the next three years, the institution must prioritize regular report publication, alignment with international standards, and collaboration with technical experts in sectors such as oil, gas, infrastructure, and public health. By opening its doors to citizen engagement and professionalizing its verification processes, the Court can restore confidence in its mission and deter future misuse of financial oversight for political gain.