Benin: legal experts renew criticism of the Court’s “silence” on self-sponsorship
Less than twenty-four hours after the rejection of their first appeal, the five jurists contesting self-sponsorship filed a new petition with the Constitutional Court. They now accuse the High Court of an “unconstitutional silence,” which they equate with a “blatant violation of the Constitution.”
SUMMARY
On Thursday, October 9, 2025, the Constitutional Court had declared inadmissible the first petition filed by jurists Miguèle Houeto, Landry Angelo Adelakoun, Romaric Zinsou, Fréjus Attindoglo and Conaïde Akouedenoudje.
They were challenging an interpretation by the director general of elections that “if one can vote for oneself, one can also sponsor oneself.” A reading the complainants considered “contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Electoral Code.”
Their petition sought a clarification from the Court on the legality of self-sponsorship, an issue that is sparking intense debate ahead of the April 2026 presidential election.
But the Court found that it was not competent to hear the request, on the grounds that it concerned neither a regulatory act nor an infringement of a fundamental right.
“The Court violates the Constitution by its silence”
Refusing to stop there, the group of jurists filed a new petition on Friday, October 10, 2025, registered under number 2108 at the Court’s registry. This time, they are targeting not only the interpretation of the director general of elections, but also the Court’s own conduct, which they accuse of failing in its constitutional mission.
According to them, the Constitutional Court’s silence constitutes a violation of Articles 3 and 117 of the Constitution, which make it the guarantor of the regularity of presidential elections.
“When the Constituent speaks of oversight of the regularity of the election of the president and vice-president duo, it concerns electoral litigation as a whole,” they argue.
They therefore believe the Court must take up the question of sponsorship on its own initiative, since it falls both within disputes over preliminary acts and within candidate-related litigation.
The five jurists are calling on the High Court to acknowledge its failure, to declare that its silence violates the fundamental law, and to rule on the debate around self-sponsorship of its own accord.
A crucial issue for the party Les Démocrates
The question of sponsorship crystallizes tensions within the political class, particularly for the opposition party Les Démocrates (LD). With 28 deputies, the party has exactly the number of sponsors required to field a ticket in the presidential election.
However, if the Court were to declare self-sponsorship unconstitutional, several party figures, including Éric Houndété, Nourénou Atchadé and Kamel Ouassagari, could see their candidacies jeopardized.
This legal showdown between the Constitutional Court and a faction of jurists close to the opposition could well reshape the contours of the political landscape just months before an already tense presidential poll.
Comments