The constitutional revision bill adopted on Monday 29 June by Senegal’s National Assembly will ultimately be put to a referendum.

Justice Minister Moussa Sarr announced this before deputies, specifying that President Bassirou Diomaye Faye had decided to use this procedure under Article 103 of the Constitution.

“The president wanted to inform the president of the National Assembly that he has decided to submit the adopted text to a referendum,” the justice minister declared.

This reform, championed by the PASTEF-led majority, aims for a deep transformation of the country’s institutional architecture. It seeks to strengthen the role of Parliament, modify the distribution of powers between the president and the prime minister, and establish a Constitutional Court to replace the Constitutional Council.

The choice of a referendum comes as the text adopted by deputies sparks heated debate within Senegal’s political class. Supporters see it as a major step toward new institutional governance, while critics denounce a project that could further weaken the balance of powers.

The popular consultation will allow Senegalese citizens to directly decide on this reform, which is one of the main promises of institutional transformation defended by PASTEF during the 2024 presidential election.

Presented by its initiators as a major milestone in the institutional rebuilding promised by PASTEF, the reform profoundly alters certain state mechanisms: creation of a Constitutional Court, a new relationship between the president and prime minister, strengthened Parliament, and greater separation between the presidential function and partisan activity.

Why a constitutional reform now?

The constitutional reform was among the major commitments of the project carried by PASTEF during the 2024 presidential election. It was meant to translate a desire to break with the old political system, accused by its promoters of concentrating too much power in the hands of the head of state.

The rise to power of Bassirou Diomaye Faye, elected in March 2024, fueled hopes for rapid institutional transformation. But the political context has since evolved: the president has distanced himself from the leadership of the party that brought him to power, even though he officially remains a member of PASTEF.

This situation adds a particular dimension to the debate. The majority party now defends an institutional reform that directly affects the balance between institutions, at a time when political relations between the president and his former party have become more complex.

But this reform, which does not establish a new republic, is already sparking intense discussions. Its supporters see it as a necessary step to modernise Senegal’s institutions and correct imbalances accumulated over decades. Its detractors, however, fear a transformation of the political system that could alter the balance of powers.

What are the main reforms proposed in the new text?

One of the most significant changes in the text is the replacement of the current Constitutional Council with a Constitutional Court, whose powers would be greatly expanded.

Currently composed of seven members (a president, a vice-president and five judges), the Constitutional Council would expand to nine members, including seven judges. The term would remain six years and non-renewable.

But the major change primarily concerns its missions.

The new Court would become “the highest jurisdiction” in three areas: constitutional, electoral and referendum matters. It would also be responsible for regulating the functioning of institutions.

Among the new powers envisaged are oversight of administrative acts related to national elections, review of constitutional exceptions raised before higher courts, and reinforced authority of its decisions, which would now be binding on all natural and legal persons.

Another novelty: the prime minister could now directly refer matters to the constitutional jurisdiction. Until now, this possibility was reserved for the president of the republic and one-tenth of deputies.

For reform advocates, this evolution would strengthen the independence of constitutional justice. For critics, the central question remains the composition of the Court and concrete guarantees of its autonomy.

A new balance between the president and the prime minister

The reform modifies the definition of executive power without removing the central role of the president.

The current Constitution states that the president “determines the policy of the Nation.” The new version specifies that he determines it “in consultation with the prime minister.”

This change introduces a logic of shared executive power. It does not strip the president of his sovereign role as head of state, the keystone of institutions, but it introduces a logic of institutional cooperation.

The president therefore retains a political orientation function, but the conduct of government action could fall more under the prime minister.

Another innovation: Article 57 would allow the prime minister to chair the Council of Ministers. But this possibility would be strictly regulated: only on express delegation from the president and with an agenda set by the head of state.

The reform also explicitly recognises the existence of delegate ministers within the government composition.

The text thus seeks to reduce the concentration of executive power around the presidency, but it does not transform Senegal into a parliamentary system. The president remains the central figure of the executive, but the stated goal is to better distribute responsibilities.

Strengthened separation between the presidential function and political parties

In the current system, the president can maintain responsibilities within a political party. The reform now prohibits the head of state from leading a party or coalition of parties.

He could only hold a ceremonial role within a party and could only participate in an electoral campaign in one specific case: when he himself is a candidate for re-election.

The text also broadens incompatibility rules: the president could not hold any other public or private function, even unpaid.

The stated objective is to strengthen the neutrality of the presidential function and avoid confusion between the state and the party apparatus.

Supporters of the text see it as a guarantee of institutional impartiality, while opponents believe this rule could limit the political link between an elected president and the majority that brought him to power.

A strengthened Parliament in its oversight role

The constitutional reform provides for enhanced powers for the National Assembly. Deputies would have increased oversight tools, including through investigative committees that can hear any person deemed useful, as well as a resolution right allowing Parliament to adopt orientation texts.

The government would also have to report more on the management of natural resources, with an obligation to inform deputies about investment agreements in strategic sectors.

The reform also prohibits holding both a ministerial post and a local mandate as mayor or president of a departmental council.

Better regulating the transition between two presidents

The reform also creates a legal framework for the transition period between a presidential election and the new head of state taking office.

During this phase, the outgoing president would be limited in certain decisions that durably commit the country.

He could notably not conclude certain strategic contracts, sign certain international agreements, or undertake major financial operations, except where necessary for the continuity of the state.

The aim is to prevent a power nearing the end of its mandate from making consequential decisions for its successor just before leaving office.

What remains unchanged in the reform project

Despite the proposed transformations, the constitutional reform does not alter several foundations of Senegal’s political system.

The president will continue to be elected by direct universal suffrage, with a term limited to two consecutive five-year periods.

The republican form of the state also remains unchanged, as do the fundamental principles protected by Article 103 of the Constitution.

Thus, the text does not mark the advent of a new republic: it aims rather to reorganise the functioning of institutions and rebalance relations between powers without altering the general nature of the regime.