Can the prosecutor act on economic lies in Senegal

It is now beyond dispute that the so-called hidden debt controversy, first brought to public attention during a press conference by Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko on September 26, 2024, was entirely fabricated. While many analysts had immediately flagged it as baseless, a coordinated propaganda effort kept the false narrative alive in public discourse for months.

Now that Sonko has admitted he never told the truth about the debt, and given the severe repercussions this deception has had on Senegal’s credibility—both domestically and abroad—should the Republic’s Prosecutor investigate him for economic treason, spreading false economic claims, and deliberate misinformation? Should those who amplified this lie also face consequences?

Legal vs. Political Accountability

To answer these questions, we must first separate the political dispute from its legal implications. What matters is not just the content of Sonko’s statements, but the authority behind them, the context in which they were made, and the real-world impact they had on trust in the state.

In a recent interview with RFI and France 24, Sonko attempted to dismiss his earlier claims by stating, “When I spoke on certain occasions, I was speaking as a political party leader expressing my opinion.” This defense raises a critical legal and institutional question: when a senior government official—specifically the Prime Minister, as outlined in Article 57 of Senegal’s Constitution—makes statements that affect the country’s economic perception, can they be treated as mere partisan rhetoric?

The timeline of the hidden debt affair exposes this ambiguity. While Sonko now claims he was speaking as an opposition figure without full access to state levers, the press conference where the allegation was first made was a government event, attended by the Prime Minister, the Secretary-General of the Government, the Minister of Economy, and the Minister of Justice. The debt issue was presented with grave urgency in multiple institutional settings, including a press conference at the Prime Minister’s office and before lawmakers. Under these circumstances, his words could no longer be dismissed as political commentary—they were the public declarations of a head of government, carrying the full weight of the state.

From Political Criticism to Institutional Accountability

There is a clear distinction to be made: political criticism is valid when grounded in verifiable facts. However, when such accusations are delivered in an official capacity and influence public or financial confidence, they must be backed by solid evidence. Failing that, they open the door to institutional—not just political—liability.

This brings us to the role of the Court of Auditors. The controversy was fueled by political interpretations of its findings, but the institution itself has never used the term hidden debt in its reports. Former President of the Court, Mamadou Faye, recently stated that the report contains no explicit mention of the phrase, effectively debunking the narrative that had been circulating for two years. His belated clarification—coming only after the damage was done—highlights the gap between technical audits and political exploitation.

Faye’s statement underscores a crucial point: the Court’s role is to present factual findings, not to validate partisan claims. The debt-to-GDP ratio was calculated using two methods—TOFE (Tableau des Opérations Financières de l’État) and budgetary accounting (revenue minus expenditure relative to GDP). If applied correctly, both should yield consistent results. The absence of the phrase hidden debt does not erase the anomalies; it shifts the debate from whether accounting irregularities existed to whether their public presentation was accurate, proportionate, and legally sound.

The Credibility Cost of Unverified Claims

The prolonged uncertainty surrounding this fabricated narrative has had tangible consequences. It has undermined Senegal’s financial credibility, fueled economic uncertainty, and potentially influenced sovereign credit ratings. Public officials bear responsibility not just for the accuracy of their statements, but for their foreseeable impact—especially when those statements concern debt, fiscal transparency, or the state’s ability to meet its obligations.

This aligns with warnings issued in our analysis from September 28, 2024, where we cautioned that reckless government rhetoric on debt could erode investor confidence, trigger negative market reactions, degrade sovereign ratings, and raise borrowing costs. Such outcomes, if realized, would constrain fiscal space, discourage investment, and ultimately affect job creation.

Institutional Trust and the Role of Oversight Bodies

Beyond this specific case, the episode raises broader questions about the credibility of public discourse. When officials make sweeping economic claims without verification, they risk weakening institutional trust—a foundation of democratic governance. The Court of Auditors must not only publish regular, transparent reports but also ensure their findings are communicated in a way that prevents misinterpretation.

The new President of the Court—a transitional figure with less than three years until retirement—faces a critical mandate. His priorities should include:

• Timely publication of annual reports to maintain transparency;
• Finalizing institutional reforms to align with international standards;
• Expanding the Court’s expertise by integrating technical professionals (petroleum engineers, infrastructure specialists, accountants, public health experts) to enhance analytical depth;
• Opening the institution to public scrutiny to foster civic engagement;
• Strengthening professional certification and public policy evaluations.

The credibility of Senegal’s institutions depends on their ability to produce clear, timely, and incontestable findings. Without that, even the most rigorous audits risk becoming fodder for political manipulation.

The case of the alleged hidden debt is not just a political scandal—it is a test of whether Senegal’s oversight institutions can reclaim their role as guardians of transparency. Until then, the line between political criticism and institutional accountability will remain dangerously blurred.