Sodjinou’s sponsorship: Gilles Badet’s technical take on the TPI of Cotonou’s decision

La suite après la publicité

In his analysis, he believes that by stating that “sponsorship belongs to the elected official and not to his political party,” the judge has just settled a major debate in the Beninese political landscape, at a time when deputy Michel Sodjinou’s refusal to sponsor is provoking strong reactions.

For jurist and academic Gilles Badet, this judicial decision constitutes an essential clarification. In his analysis, he believes that “the judge clearly recalled that the sponsorship form is personal and that it cannot be withheld or confiscated by a political party against the will of its holder.”

In other words, each deputy or mayor retains full control over their act of sponsorship: they can freely choose to give it, to refuse it or even to withdraw it as long as the official list of presidential candidacies has not been published by the CENA.

This position of the judge, supported by Gilles Badet, is based on Article 44 of the Constitution and Article 132 of the Electoral Code. These provisions make sponsorship an essential condition for the admissibility of candidacies, without limiting the freedom of conscience of elected officials.

The Constitutional Court had already, in decisions issued in February 2021, recognized the sponsor’s freedom and the possibility for them to retract before the close of candidacies.

The order of October 13, 2025 therefore fits within this logic, while reaffirming the role of the ordinary judge in protecting this individual political freedom. It also provides a clear response to partisan abuses observed since the March 2024 reform of the Electoral Code, which requires that an elected official may only sponsor the candidate of their party or of an allied formation.

For Badet, this provision has often been wrongly interpreted as permission given to parties to confiscate the sponsorship forms of their elected officials.

“Sponsorship is not an internal disciplinary tool, but an act of democratic responsibility,” he insists.

This interpretation comes in a context of tension between the party Les Démocrates and deputy Michel Sodjinou, accused of refusing to sponsor the Agbodjo–Lodjou duo designated by his political formation.

In light of this order, the elected official’s refusal now appears as an exercise of his individual right, legally protected, according to Gilles Badet’s analysis.

Ultimately, the decision of the Cotonou Tribunal and jurist Badet’s analysis reaffirm a fundamental idea: in a democratic regime, the elective mandate and the prerogatives that stem from it belong to the person elected, not to their party.