Togo reforms unconstitutional, rules ECOWAS court

The West African regional court, known as the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), has ruled that the 2024 constitutional reform in Togo is unconstitutional. The decision, issued on June 29, 2026, challenges one of the most significant political shifts in the country's recent history. The reform, which aimed to transition Togo from a semi-presidential system to a parliamentary model, was deemed to violate fundamental democratic principles enshrined in the region’s legal framework.

The constitutional changes, enacted in March 2024, altered the structure of governance by shifting executive authority from the presidency to a parliamentary system. Under the revised constitution, the president would no longer be directly elected by citizens but instead chosen by members of parliament for a six-year term. This shift sparked immediate controversy, particularly among opposition groups who argued that the reform effectively allowed President Faure Gnassingbé to extend his tenure beyond the traditional two-term limit. Critics claimed the move was a strategic maneuver to consolidate power and bypass electoral constraints.

The ECOWAS Court of Justice found that the reform violated several key provisions of the regional charter, including the principle of regular elections and the requirement for legislative bodies to operate within their mandated terms. According to the ruling, the parliament that approved the reform had already exceeded its term, making the process illegitimate under African democratic norms. The court emphasized that such a change constitutes an unconstitutional alteration of government structures, undermining the rule of law and democratic accountability.

President Faure Gnassingbé, who has held power since 2005, has faced repeated accusations of authoritarianism. His administration has been criticized for suppressing dissent, controlling media outlets, and limiting political freedoms. The 2024 constitutional reform was seen by many as another attempt to entrench his leadership indefinitely. While the ruling does not have direct legal force over national laws, it provides a strong legal foundation for opposition forces to challenge the legitimacy of the reform in domestic courts.

Supporters of the reform, however, argue that the changes were necessary to stabilize the country and promote good governance. They claim that the parliamentary system would allow for more efficient policymaking and reduce the risk of presidential overreach. Nevertheless, these claims have largely been dismissed by international observers and human rights organizations, which continue to highlight the lack of genuine political pluralism in Togo.

Political parties and civil society groups that filed the lawsuit against the reform expressed relief at the court’s decision. These groups, including the Togolese National Union and the Human Rights League, have long advocated for greater transparency and adherence to democratic processes. They view the ruling as a crucial step toward restoring the balance of power and ensuring that future governance in Togo aligns with regional democratic standards.

Looking ahead, the ruling may lead to increased pressure on the Togolese government to reverse the constitutional changes or face further legal consequences. International actors, including the United Nations and the European Union, are likely to monitor the situation closely, given the ongoing concerns about human rights and political repression in the country. Meanwhile, local activists and opposition leaders are preparing to use the court’s findings as leverage in their efforts to push for democratic reforms and hold the government accountable.