Togo’s constitutional shift: Faure Gnassingbé’s grip on power beyond legal frameworks

A recent incident involving the arrest of two French nationals in northern Togo has starkly illuminated the concerning trajectory of governance within the nation. Following their detention by intelligence services, both individuals were formally charged this Monday, with their fate reportedly sealed by a direct directive from Faure Gnassingbé. He allegedly instructed his Justice Minister, Pacôme Adjourouvi, to resist all external pressure.

Beyond its diplomatic ramifications, this episode underscores a more profound systemic issue: a perceived collapse in the country’s governance oversight. A fundamental question now confronts Togo: who genuinely holds power, and under what legitimate authority?

Upon closer examination, Faure Gnassingbé, in a strict sense, no longer occupies the role of the President of the Togolese Republic. By orchestrating the adoption of a new Constitution and appointing a largely symbolic “President of the Republic” while reserving the powerful position of President of the Council for himself, the administration has forged an unprecedented institutional arrangement on the global stage. This represents a significant institutional reconfiguration, where formal titles appear secondary to the raw exercise of power.

This maneuver signals a troubling shift. Refusing to relinquish control of the state, the Togolese leader appears to treat the nation’s foundational law like a deck of cards in a casino: rules are altered to suit immediate interests, reshuffled whenever the current hand proves inconvenient. By issuing direct instructions to magistrates while simultaneously sheltering behind tailor-made institutions, he confirms that the separation of powers has become merely an artificial construct.

Togo is no longer grappling with a mere contested constitutional transition; it faces a highly personalized exercise of power, seemingly unconstrained by republican principles. This creates an volatile environment where arbitrary decision-making has unequivocally superseded legal norms.

An unprecedented institutional overhaul

The 2024 reform, approved by a National Assembly overwhelmingly dominated by the ruling UNIR party, transformed the presidential system into what is termed a “parliamentary” one. The President of the Republic, Jean-Lucien Savi de Tové, now performs an almost entirely honorary function. All substantive executive authority encompassing the determination of national policy, command of the armed forces, appointments to civilian and military positions, international representation, and regulatory powers has been transferred to the “President of the Council,” a role occupied by Faure Gnassingbé himself since May 3, 2025.

Critically, this new position is not subject to any term limits. While the 1992 Constitution (as revised) restricted the President to two mandates, the current institutional architecture permits indefinite tenure. The leader of the majority party automatically assumes the role of President of the Council. With UNIR securing 108 out of 113 parliamentary seats following the 2024 legislative elections (which saw significant opposition boycotts), the outcome was effectively predetermined. This represents not democratic alternation, but a perpetuation of dynastic power under a new guise.

Justice instrumentalized

The case of the two French journalists, Sébastien Perez Pezzani and Gaël Mocaër, apprehended while filming for a France Télévisions program, is not an isolated incident. It aligns with a pattern of actions where intelligence services and the Ministry of Justice operate under direct instructions. The alleged order to “not yield to any pressure” exposes a command chain that completely bypasses judicial independence. When the head of the executive dictates the conduct of magistrates, the separation of powers ceases to exist.

This practice is not new. It has been observed in the handling of demonstrations in June 2025, in prosecutions against critical voices, and in the treatment of other sensitive cases. The law increasingly appears to function as a political management tool, deployed or neutralized according to the exigencies of the moment.

Eroding legitimacy

Who truly governs Togo? The answer is clear: a single individual who inherited power in 2005, consolidated it over two decades, and subsequently reshaped institutions to retain control beyond any prior constitutional limitations. The Togolese populace was not consulted via referendum on this fundamental alteration. Legislative elections unfolded amidst widespread protest and boycotts. The Senate, with a third of its members appointed by the President of the Council, further reinforces this centralized control.

This is no longer a transition. It is a re-establishment of personal power cloaked in an institutional veneer. While titles may change and formalities accumulate, the ultimate locus of decision-making remains constant: Faure Gnassingbé, now President of the Council, head of the majority, commander of the armed forces, and the ultimate arbiter.

An explosive situation

When arbitrary rule supplants legal principles, when institutions become hollow shells, and when the judiciary bends to political directives, the social contract inevitably weakens. Togo is no longer confronting a mere constitutional dispute. It faces a regime that has chosen to govern outside any stable and predictable republican framework.

The question is no longer simply, “who is in charge?” It has evolved into: how long can this system endure before its internal contradictions and popular pressures inevitably lead to its unraveling?