Case filed over its own organic-law reform: the Constitutional Court closes the door to ruling on the facts

If the Supreme Court, chaired by Professor Cossi Dorothé Sossa, validates the general framework of the text, it, on the other hand, rejects a clear refusal to any attempt to widen its powers to judge ‘facts’ and ‘material acts’.

Filed on February 13 by the head of state, Patrice Talon, for a constitutional review, the Court issued a particularly instructive ruling on Law No. 2026-03 amending its organic law. In this decision, the seven judges firmly remind of the limits of their office: the Court is a judge of the legal norm, not of the materiality of facts.

Article 28 of the Organic Law in Question

The main point of friction concerned the new Article 28 of the transmitted text. It provided for the possibility of filing with the Court for the “finding of a violation of fundamental rights” based on the “date of occurrence of the violation.” For the rapporteurs Nicolas Luc A. Assogba and Vincent Codjo Acakpo, the introduction of the notion of “fact” as the basis for its referral constitutes an extension of powers incompatible with the constitutional order.

The Court recalls that, in accordance with Articles 114 and 122 of the Constitution, its mission is limited to the review of laws, regulatory texts, and administrative acts. It has therefore ordered the removal, in this article, of any reference to the facts of violation.

The material act, clearly set aside

A second point of censure concerns the new Article 37, which envisaged the direct referral of the Court by any citizen against “material acts” infringing human rights. Again, the position of the Supreme Court is unambiguous. Article 122 of the Constitution expressly excludes from its scope texts and acts lacking regulatory or administrative character.

In seeking to include the material acts, the legislator crossed a boundary deemed contrary to the Constitution.
Outside of these provisions, the Court declared the rest of Law No. 2026-03 in conformity with the Constitution.

This decision strengthens the balance of jurisdiction in Benin, preventing the Constitutional Court from slipping into the role of an ordinary court of law or a universal fact finder, to the detriment of its primary mission: to be the guarantor of the constitutionality of norms and the regulator of the functioning of institutions.