Benin – Municipal elections 2026: already legal challenges
Hardly had the ballots closed, and even though the Autonomous National Electoral Commission had not yet released the first official figures, the judicial battle has intruded into the electoral process.
Seized of five appeals filed by local leaders of parties within the presidential fold, the Supreme Court of Benin has ruled. All were declared inadmissible.
Indeed, on Friday, January 16, 2026, in Porto-Novo, the administrative chamber of the Supreme Court sat in a studious atmosphere. While the public awaited the publication of the major trends of the January 11 dual ballot, some political actors sought to anticipate the judicial timetable. A move deemed precipitous by the high court.
The petitions examined targeted electorally sensitive zones. In Porto-Novo, officials of the Union Progressiste le Renouveau, including the outgoing mayor Charlemagne Yankoti, contested the figures from 26 neighborhoods. In Akpro-Missérété, the Republican Bloc questioned the compilation of results in the Zoungomè arrondissement, through Barthélémy Adjigbonon. In Toffo, in the Damè arrondissement, the grievances took a more serious turn, with accusations of fraudulent maneuvers and voter corruption leveled by a grassroots official of the UP-R.
Faced with these challenges, CENA’s stance remained constant. Its counsel reminded that the Commission had not yet proclaimed any official results and that it was legally impossible to contest an act that does not exist. The Public Prosecutor’s Office, through Attorney General Jacques Hounsou, likewise echoed the same view.
For the public prosecutor’s office, electoral litigation follows a strict chronology. The judge is only seized after the proclamation of the results, never during their compilation.
After deliberation, the panel chaired by Professor Ibrahim Salami declared the five appeals inadmissible for precocity. The reason given refers to a fundamental principle of electoral law. Without proclaimed results, there is no legally constituted grievance. The alleged injuries remain hypothetical and cannot form the basis of a contentious action.
This decision does not close the judicial debate. It simply sets its tempo. The applicants will have to wait for the official publication of the results by the CENA before, where applicable, bringing the matter back to court in compliance with the
Comments