Cotonou — 24 September 2026. Should a former minister accused of plotting against the state remain behind bars while investigators keep chasing suspects who have not yet been found? That is the dilemma at the heart of the Candide Azannaï affair, and the answer Benin’s appeal chamber has just given reaches far beyond the walls of a single cell.
By confirming the preventive detention of the man who leads the Restore Hope party, the magistrates made one thing clear: the inquiry opened after the foiled coup attempt of 7 December 2025 is still a live file. The stakes run in two directions at once — the credibility of a process watched well beyond Benin’s borders, and the stability of a political scene that has not yet absorbed the shock of that night.
What the judges actually weighed before ruling
The decision followed the rejection of a bid for provisional release filed with the chamber of detention and freedoms. The defence then exercised its full right of appeal, and the hearing that followed was anything but a formality: the accused was brought in person from his place of detention, given the floor, and allowed to set out his own account of the facts.
When the court finally ruled, its reasoning rested on two procedural pillars rather than on any political judgement:
- Suspects described as co-authors of the alleged plot are still on the run.
- The investigation is not finished, and the file must be shielded from interference or any alteration of evidence.
The message, in short, is that custody here serves the search for truth rather than punishment before trial.
The accusations that explain the court’s firmness
To understand why the judges moved as they did, the nature of the charges matters. Arrested in December 2025 in the aftermath of the events that unsettled the state apparatus, the former minister faces serious counts brought before the Court for the Repression of Economic Offences and Terrorism.
Among them are conspiracy against the security of the state and incitement to rebellion. In a consolidated constitutional democracy, the argument goes, an attempt to destabilise institutions cannot be treated lightly — which is precisely why the investigation must map every branch of the alleged network before anyone walks free.
Rights of the defence: what the record shows
Critics of prolonged custody often warn about the risk of summary justice. The visible record of this case points elsewhere. The defendant was regularly taken from detention to appear before his judges, and his counsel was able to argue at length. Each stage followed the criminal procedure code, from the first request for release to the appeal now decided.
In the lawyer’s own words
Perhaps the most telling detail came from the defence bench itself. Speaking after the hearing, Me Aboubacar Baparapé acknowledged that the essential steps of the judicial investigation had been carried out by the book.
“His questioning on the merits is finished, there is nothing further to add,” he said — a statement that effectively confirms the instruction on his client’s individual role has run its course, and that the accused had every opportunity to explain himself.
The lawyer also stressed how freely his client had spoken throughout the proceedings: “In any case, he said he is not involved in this affair, that he has nothing to do with everything being invented around him in connection with this case.” Those words underline that the defence could plead innocence and reject the allegations put to him without obstruction.
On what comes next, Me Baparapé stayed measured and legalistic: “At the right moment, we will file a new request until we are heard.” Judicial review, in other words, remains open — and the system provides for it.
The wider question: rigour versus individual liberty
Disappointment in the defence camp is understandable. Yet the appeal ruling places facts above political noise. In a case of this magnitude, the judge’s clock is not the clock of urgency or emotion. By keeping the inquiry alive while presumed co-authors are still being sought, the courts protect society and preserve the conditions for a fair trial.
That is the balance Benin’s judiciary is being asked to hold: firmness on the merits of a grave file, and scrupulous respect for the rights of the man at its centre. Whether that balance satisfies everyone is another matter — but the question driving this affair is no longer whether the courts will act. It is whether they can keep acting without the pressure of the moment deciding for them.
