The Softcare affair broke on December 8, 2025. The Senegalese Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (ARP) announced, in a statement, the suspension of the sale of Softcare brand diapers and sanitary napkins. The decision followed an inspection of the production plant located in Sindia, in the Thiès region.

According to the document sent to healthcare professionals and consumer associations, expired raw materials were found in the manufacturing process of products intended for babies, children, and women. This situation was deemed serious enough to justify the immediate withdrawal of the company's products from the market as a public health measure.

The ARP specifies that this suspension will remain in effect until the manufacturing process is fully compliant, in order to guarantee user safety. The agency urges healthcare professionals to share this information with their patients and to exercise vigilance regarding these products.

A week later, the agency reversed its decision, assuring that the expired materials had not been used in the manufacture of baby diapers and sanitary napkins.

The controversy is raging on social media. At the center of an intense controversy linked to accusations of manufacturing products from expired raw materials, Softcare has broken its silence.

In a statement published on Monday, December 22, 2025, the company categorically rejects the accusations circulating against it and denounces what it calls “defamation, malicious denunciations and unfounded rumors”, widely relayed, according to the company, on social networks.

Voices that challenge the institution: who really benefits?

During the collective submission of letters of protest to the Ministry of Health and Public Hygiene, MP Guy Marius Sagna expressed serious doubts about the credibility of the Director General of the Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (ARP).

He recalled that, as early as March 2025, he had submitted a written question to the Minister of Health regarding possible prior accusations against the head of the Pharmaceutical Regulatory Authority (PRA)—a question which, according to him, remains unanswered to this day. The MP believes this institutional silence fuels mistrust and undermines public confidence in the pharmaceutical regulatory system. He calls on the Ministry of Health to be transparent, to provide clear explanations about the PRA's operations, and, if necessary, to take decisive action to ensure that public health remains the sole guiding principle of government action.

A position that ignores ongoing investigations

However, this position ignores the fact that a joint mission, composed of experts from the Ministry of Health and Public Hygiene, the Ministry of Commerce and a representative of the National Assembly, has already begun its investigation within Softcare, a company specializing in the manufacture of baby diapers and sanitary napkins, according to official sources.

"The investigation into this case began on December 19, 2025, with the intervention of the Internal Inspectorate of the Ministry of Health. In parallel, the joint mission procedure was launched."

This joint mission, composed of experts from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Commerce and the National Assembly, began its investigation work on Wednesday, January 7, 2026,” specifies the press release published last Friday by the Ministry of Health and Public Hygiene.

The document further specifies that, following its press release of December 18, 2025, the Ministry of Health and Public Hygiene, in accordance with its commitment, informs the public that "the joint investigation mission announced as part of the inspection of the company Softcare by the ARP is currently underway."

The Ministry of Health reiterates its commitment to returning to the public with accurate, verified and factual information as soon as the mission has submitted its report, calling on the entire population to remain calm and reaffirming its commitment to health security and compliance with current regulations.

Extension of parliamentary oversight

Three members of the 15th legislature of the National Assembly of Senegal have submitted an official request to the Chair of the Committee on Health, Population, Social Affairs and National Solidarity in order to shed light on the situation within the Senegalese Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (ARP), particularly since the outbreak of the so-called Softcare affair.

In this context, the three MPs wrote to the Chair of the Committee to request a hearing with the Director General of the ARP. In their official letter dated November 17, 2025, registered on January 9, 2026, co-signed and sent to the Minister of Health and Public Hygiene, MPs El Hadji Ousmane Fall, Ousmane Diop and Ousmane Ciss formally request a hearing with the Director General of the ARP regarding the dysfunctions identified within the agency.

This initiative by the three parliamentarians raises questions about the consistency of actions taken in Parliament. How, indeed, can one understand this deliberate departure from the National Assembly when a mission intended to inform public opinion has already been approved? The MPs' solitary action appears to be a commission acting on behalf of hidden interests. Moreover, the MPs' blatant disregard for parliamentary authority and solidarity is undeniable.

Could the Softcare affair be concealing another one?

Is the Softcare affair the result of a vast power struggle involving hidden interests? This question is far from meaningless, given the feverish and intriguing commotion it has recently generated. Indeed, too many actions have been taken not to suggest the existence of numerous vested interests surrounding Softcare.

How else can we explain that the Ministry of Health and Public Hygiene finds itself at the center of criticism when the joint commission of inquiry with the Ministry of Commerce has not yet issued its conclusions?

Initially, Softcare should have followed a routine administrative procedure: inspection, technical report, corrective measures, and then communication. Health controls are essential in an organized country. Like defense and security forces, these controls protect citizens and guarantee the quality of products placed on the market. This reality was likely disregarded, giving way to blatant politicization coupled with dubious communication. No time was allowed for the facts to be confirmed.

It is in this context that the public statement from the pharmacist inspectors has emerged. A turning point has been marked in the Softcare case. By challenging an official statement that they consider inconsistent with the reality of their mission, they have highlighted a serious disconnect between technical expertise and administrative communication.

At this stage, it's impossible to ignore another certainty: Softcare stems from a disagreement over administrative, not healthcare, governance. The statement of a key player is enough to illustrate the intrusion of politics into this affair. This executive's intervention before the inspection reports were validated gives the case a political twist that is difficult to deny.

On the Softcare side: who is profiting behind the scenes?

While the joint investigation by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Commerce is still ongoing, numerous petition letters attributed to Softcare employees have surfaced on social media. Upon verification, the content of these letters has been confirmed as authentic. Amid this climate, where the case has stirred strong public emotion—particularly due to the sensitive nature of the products involved (sanitary napkins and baby diapers)—Softcare has stated that misleading information is being disseminated, potentially deceiving the public. The company has warned that it reserves the right to take all necessary legal action to defend its interests and protect its reputation.

In a statement sent to Point Actu, Softcare's management emphasized the unfounded nature of the accusations and called for caution. They believe that the public debate surrounding this case has been marked by extrapolations and hasty judgments in the absence of official conclusions from the relevant authorities.

As a result, the company stated that it has full confidence in the Senegalese government and the joint investigation team set up to shed light on this matter.

A call for patience

Softcare has also invited consumers and the general public to calmly await the results of the ongoing investigation and to rely exclusively on the final conclusions issued by the competent authorities.

For the company, only a rigorous and objective investigation will make it possible to establish the facts and determine responsibilities, free from any media pressure or speculation.

Economic and social impact

As a company making a decisive contribution to the national economy, Softcare claims more than 500 direct jobs and thousands of indirect jobs, emphasizing that its activities constitute a source of income for many families.

As such, the company states that it has no interest in compromising consumer health or jeopardizing the trust built since its establishment in the country.

While the joint investigation by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Commerce is still ongoing, we are receiving numerous petition letters from Softcare employees.

The investigation is not finished, but the pressure of public opinion is already beginning to disrupt their daily lives — pressure at work, anxiety within families, many ordinary employees now find themselves thrown into the heart of the storm.

In their letters, the employees repeatedly emphasize that they are following procedure and awaiting results, but they also demand that the public confront the reality. Under the weight of the controversy, it is not only the company that is affected, but entire Senegalese citizens and families.

Their expectation is singular: that official and authoritative conclusions be issued quickly, so that the case can return to the facts.

What are the underlying motivations and who is pulling the strings?

Given all these factors, it's easy to see that behind this ever-escalating media campaign, rife with underlying tensions, might lie undisclosed motives. Are certain interests threatened by the existence and growth of Softcare?

Well-informed sources on business activity in Senegal are categorical: opening the market to competition creates losers.

Companies whose survival is threatened harbor resentment toward Softcare's expansion and success. By fueling unverified brand controversies, competitors have been able to capture market share that would otherwise have gone to Softcare.

Meanwhile, a discreet internal struggle, suggesting settling of scores within the senior management of the ARP, is also fueling the campaign against Softcare.

The Softcare case has reached such a high level of abnormality not because of a simple health problem, but because it has been exploited by an unprecedented political conflict and by commercial maneuvers of competitors seeking to seize Softcare's market position.

One question arises in this turmoil fueled by a fierce battle of interests: must thousands of workers, distributors, consumers, and the State itself pay the price for internal power struggles?

Source: Point Actu newspaper