Local elections: Supreme Court rejects appeal over election preparations

The Supreme Court’s urgent applications judge has rejected an appeal lodged on 21 August 2026 by Modou Diagne, Khalifa Ababacar Sall, Samba Sy, Oumar Sarr and Abdou Mbow. The applicants challenged the absence of several preparatory measures for the upcoming municipal and departmental elections.

They notably sought a finding that the minister in charge of elections, the electoral administration and the National Autonomous Electoral Commission (CENA) had failed to act. Their application concerned the revision of electoral rolls, the setting of the deposit, and the publication of a provisional timetable.

Urgency not established

The applicants argued that the alleged delays undermined voting rights, the right to stand for election and equality before the ballot. The State, for its part, argued that the urgent applications judge lacked jurisdiction and that the appeal had been filed prematurely.

The Supreme Court dismissed both objections, but held that the condition of urgency had not been sufficiently established. Emergency proceedings to protect fundamental freedoms may concern an act or failure to act by the administration when a fundamental freedom is subject to a serious and manifest infringement in an urgent context.

Election timetable at the heart of the dispute

Municipal and departmental councillors elected on 23 January 2022 serve five-year terms. The applicants argued that the renewal should take place within the 30 days preceding the expiry of the fifth year, meaning no later than 17 January 2027.

In its assessment, the judge noted that the Electoral Code provides for a five-year term while allowing an exception to the renewal deadline where circumstances require it. The judge also stressed that the election date is set by decree, with no specific deadline imposed for issuing that measure. Elections must nevertheless be held during the fifth year of the term.

The decision is therefore based neither on the judge’s lack of jurisdiction nor on the inadmissibility of the application, but on the absence of urgency at this stage.