The question of the compatibility of mandates within Senegalese institutions is not merely a technical debate; it strikes at the very heart of constitutional balance and the separation of powers. The case of Ousmane Sonko, elected as a member of parliament in 2024 while already serving as Prime Minister, strongly illustrates the strictness of the rules governing access to and exercise of parliamentary office.
### An Unambiguous Legal Framework
The Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, in accordance with organic laws and the Electoral Code, establish a fundamental distinction between two situations:
* that of a sitting member of parliament appointed as minister, governed by Article 124, which provides for temporary replacement;
* and that of a citizen already serving as a member of the Government who is elected as a member of parliament, governed by Articles 123 and 132, which establish a regime of immediate incompatibility.
In the second case, the rule is explicit:
“The office of member of parliament is incompatible with the status of member of the Government…” (Article 123).
The elected official has eight days to resolve the incompatibility. Failing this, “he shall automatically be declared resigned” (Article 132).
Thus, the mechanism of temporary suspension does not apply in the case of Ousmane Sonko. The substitute is not a temporary replacement, but becomes the definitive holder of the seat for the entire legislative term.
### An Incompatibility Fully Realized
By choosing to retain his position as Prime Minister, Ousmane Sonko has, both de facto and de jure, renounced his parliamentary mandate. The resignation is not merely theoretical: it is legally established through the incompatibility not being resolved within the legal timeframe.
The parliamentary seat no longer belongs to him, and his substitute is installed as of right.
This institutional reading confirms that the Sonko case does not fall under the mechanism provided for in Article 56 of the Constitution (a member of parliament becoming a minister and later reclaiming his seat). Rather, it constitutes a definitive rupture of the parliamentary link.
### Stakes for the Balance of Powers
Beyond the uniqueness of the case, this situation highlights the need for vigilance in managing incompatibilities.
It reminds us that Senegalese democracy rests on a strict articulation between the executive and legislative branches. Respect for deadlines and incompatibility rules is not a mere formality: it ensures that no one can indefinitely accumulate the levers of power.
The primacy granted to governmental office reflects a political choice, but it also enshrines an institutional rule: the impossibility of returning to Parliament after choosing the executive branch.
Thus, the Sonko case illustrates an institutional truth: the law is not a one-way bridge. Whoever chooses Government renounces Parliament.
Far from being a constraint, this rule is a guarantee of coherence and stability for the Republic. It reminds us that political legitimacy must always operate within the legal framework in order to preserve the balance of powers and the credibility of institutions.