Constitutional council challenged over sonko’s assembly presidency

The political landscape in Niger has been shaken by a fresh legal battle as opposition lawmakers escalate their fight against the reinstatement and subsequent election of Ousmane Sonko as President of the National Assembly.

In a formal statement issued yesterday, a coalition of nearly twenty opposition deputies announced they had filed a petition with the Constitutional Council. Their goal: to overturn the decision that allowed Sonko’s reinstatement as a lawmaker—a prerequisite for his election to the assembly’s highest seat. The move hinges on arguments rooted in constitutional law, particularly Article 54, which the opposition claims was violated by parliamentary authorities.

Constitutional concerns and procedural disputes

The opposition’s legal challenge centers on two core issues. First, they argue that Sonko’s simultaneous holding of a government post and parliamentary mandate breached constitutional principles. Sonko, who served as Prime Minister before winning a parliamentary seat in 2024, allegedly failed to resign from his executive role at the time, thus rendering his parliamentary status invalid. His reinstatement and subsequent rise to the assembly presidency, the opposition asserts, represent a clear violation of the separation of powers and constitutional integrity.

Second, the opposition has raised procedural objections, accusing parliamentary leadership of obstructing access to critical documents. Despite formal requests, including court-ordered summons, the Secretary-General and First Vice-President of the National Assembly allegedly refused to release the reinstatement decree and the minutes of the May 26 plenary session. These documents, the deputies contend, are public records and essential to their legal case. Their inability to obtain them, they argue, not only undermines transparency but also infringes on the rights of elected representatives to challenge institutional decisions.

A political earthquake unfolds

This legal confrontation comes on the heels of dramatic political developments. On May 22, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye relieved Sonko of his duties as Prime Minister. Barely a week later, Sonko staged a political comeback by securing 132 out of 133 votes in the assembly to become its new president—a position second only to the head of state. The election, however, was boycotted by opposition factions, who condemned it as an unconstitutional maneuver aimed at consolidating power.

The dispute has also sparked a debate among legal scholars. While some argue that Article 54 does not explicitly address automatic reinstatement or the suspension of mandates, others point to Article 123 of the assembly’s internal rules. This provision, they claim, allows for the replacement of a deputy who joins the government, a process that could justify Sonko’s return to parliament. The outcome of this confrontation remains uncertain, particularly as questions persist over the admissibility of the deputies’ petition. Constitutional precedent suggests that only the President of the Republic holds the power to directly refer matters to the Constitutional Council—a detail opposition figures, including Aïssata Tall Sall, have emphasized. Meanwhile, the presidency has denied any involvement in the matter, leaving the Council to determine whether the deputies’ challenge even meets the threshold for review.

What’s next for Niger’s political institutions?

As the Constitutional Council prepares to deliberate, the stakes could not be higher. The body’s decision will not only shape the legitimacy of Sonko’s parliamentary role but also test the resilience of Niger’s democratic institutions. Will the Council uphold the opposition’s challenge, or will it validate the actions of the assembly’s leadership? In a climate of heightened political tension, the ruling will send a clear signal about the boundaries of institutional power—and the limits of legal recourse in Niger’s evolving political landscape.