Six months ago, in April to be precise, parliamentary expert Alioune Souaré pointed out that the impeachment motion filed by Guy Marius Sagna, which targeted Macky Sall, was inadmissible. Today, the facts have proven him right, as the National Assembly has rejected the MP's proposal. Mr. Souaré explains here what ruined Mr. Sagna's request. He also draws attention to what could be a major obstacle in Macky Sall's case.

 

You said that the impeachment proposal introduced by Guy Marius Sagna should be dismissed. The Assembly actually rejected it this Monday. What did you find inappropriate?

 

The National Assembly operates on the basis of the application of its internal regulations. If you go to Article 103 of the internal regulations, it clearly states that: "The Assembly may include on its agenda the discussion of resolutions presented by one of its committees, a parliamentary group or a number of non-attached members equal to one tenth of the members of the Assembly ." Whether it is a resolution of impeachment, or a resolution for the creation of a commission of inquiry, in any case, any resolution must be presented by either a standing committee, or by the parliamentary group or by one tenth ^of the non-attached members. Now, if Guy Marius Sagna takes the initiative intuitu personae, you see that it is not in accordance with this provision.

 

So you based your decision on that?

 

This is the basis on which I based my decision that this impeachment resolution was inadmissible. The Bureau has full responsibility for examining the admissibility or inadmissibility of either a bill or a resolution. I believe that it is indeed a problem of conformity. The proposed resolution does not comply with the provisions of the rules of procedure, and the Bureau of the National Assembly cannot do otherwise, because otherwise, it would be going beyond its own texts.

 

Can the Pastef parliamentary group therefore submit a new motion for a resolution to impeach Macky Sall?

 

Yes. The initiative should now come from the parliamentary group. From a formal point of view, if it's compliant, the substance is another matter. Submitting a compliant motion for a resolution doesn't mean that there is any legality in substance. Because the impeachment of the President of the Republic is governed by Article 101 of the Constitution, which speaks of the irresponsibility of the President of the Republic, except in the case of "high treason." And that really poses another problem.

 

What problem?

 

Because the constitution does not define what "high treason" is. This will be another obstacle they will face. Unless, perhaps, they write to the Constitutional Council asking it to interpret what it calls "high treason." The term appears in the constitution, but the same text does not define what "high treason" is. The Constitutional Council is the guardian of the constitution; only it can interpret the constitution.

 

And in other countries, particularly in Africa, how has this issue been resolved?

 

In other countries, like Benin, the Beninese constitution defines what "high treason" is. It gives substance to high treason. But we have a constitution that has many gaps. If the parliamentary group carries this impeachment resolution, it would be in accordance with Article 103, but if the constitution does not define "high treason," I believe that will be another obstacle. Unless they refer this provision of Article 101 to the Constitutional Council and define the term high treason.