The former director general of the National Sanitation Office of Senegal (ONAS), Cheikh Dieng, appeared before the Dakar Criminal Court on March 25, 2026. He is being prosecuted for defamation, slander, and public insults against the companies Delta SA and Vicas SARL.

However, the substantive arguments did not take place, as the defense raised procedural objections. The defendant is represented by lawyers Baba Diop, El Hadj Diouf, and Takha Cissé. Vicas Sarl is represented by El Hadj Dièye, while Delta SA is defended by Christian Faye.

Regarding the summons initiated by Delta SA, Mr. Baba Diop raised objections based on the provisions of Article 539 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that these provisions were violated by the summons of September 11, 2026.

He also invoked Article 624, criticizing the plaintiff for failing to clearly indicate the applicable legal texts. According to him, the summons merely referenced articles without specifying them.

The lawyer further argued that the defendant's status had not been specified and that the person who disseminated the incriminating remarks should have been brought into the proceedings.

Finally, he noted that the summons originated from a legal entity, asking the court to declare it null and void.

Attorney Christian Faye, representing Delta SA, relied on Article 627 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reminding the court that the defendant had ten days to submit his evidence to the public prosecutor and the civil party. He deemed the objections raised unfounded, emphasizing that the summons reproduced three specific passages from the offending press release, thus characterizing the alleged facts and the applicable legal provisions.

Regarding the defendant's standing, Mr. Faye asserts that the requirements of Article 624 have been met. He further argues that no broadcaster should have been implicated, since Cheikh Dieng himself authored the press release. He therefore pleaded for the dismissal of the objections.

The public prosecutor indicated that he had no comments. In response, Mr. Baba Diop raised the defense of truth (exceptio veritatis), provided for in Article 627, arguing that his client never received the summons allowing him to produce his evidence.

Me Faye countered that the bailiff had gone to the defendant's home, but that his son had refused to accept the document, forcing the bailiff to comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure by filing the summons at the town hall.

Regarding the proceedings initiated by Vicas SARL, Mr. Diop raised the issue of the absence of a mention of the address in the summons, in violation of articles 539 and 624. He asserts that his client only became aware of the proceedings through the press, thus arguing for the invalidity of the summons.

For his part, El Hadj Dièye, counsel for Vicas SARL, stated that he had served a summons that went unanswered. He maintains that the defendant made himself unreachable. "We went to his family home. His wife told us he wasn't there. We're not obligated to track him down to serve him with a summons," he declared, deeming the procedure to be in order.

As the prosecutor had still not made any observations, the court adjourned the case for deliberation on the exceptions until April 8, 2026.

Summary of the facts

According to the direct summons served by Bailiff Aloyse Ndong, the events date back to a press statement held on September 26, 2024, at the home of Djeddah Thiaroye Kao's wife. Cheikh Dieng accused Vicas SARL and Delta SA of having benefited from public contracts awarded through direct negotiation, following alleged intervention by the Minister of Water and Sanitation, Cheikh Tidiane Dièye.

In his remarks relayed by the press, the former CEO of ONAS stated that contracts initially awarded to the companies Tawfeekh Taysir and Delgas had been cancelled in favor of Vicas and Delta, outside of regular procedures.

He also mentioned the existence of a 2021 report concluding that these companies were failing, going so far as to declare that the minister "would be following their orders".

The plaintiff companies consider the accusations slanderous, arguing that they seriously damage their honor, reputation and credibility in the context of the public service delegation.

Despite a formal notice sent on September 3 and 4, 2024, Cheikh Dieng has not provided any response, according to the plaintiffs.