Togo protesters rally against constitutional reform amid power concerns

Hundreds gathered in Vogan, southern Togo, on Sunday to voice their opposition to the 2024 constitutional amendments, which critics argue are designed to extend President Faure Gnassingbé’s grip on power. The demonstration, coordinated by the National Framework for Change in Togo (CNCC)—a coalition of opposition parties and civil society groups—took place roughly 60 kilometers from Lomé, marking the coalition’s second major rally in three months amid limited protest activity.

The marchers carried signs with sharp messages such as “No to unconstitutional government change” and “Constitutional coup”, framing the reforms as illegitimate and a direct threat to democratic principles. David Dosseh, spokesperson for the Citizen Front Togo Debout (FCTD), one of the driving forces behind the protest, delivered a strong condemnation: “The 2024 Constitution is entirely unlawful—a constitutional coup that the people of Togo will never accept.”

The 2024 constitutional overhaul significantly reshaped Togo’s political landscape. It abolished direct presidential elections, replacing them with a parliamentary system where the head of state is no longer chosen by universal suffrage. Under the new framework, the role of President of the Council—now the country’s top executive position—is filled by Faure Gnassingbé, who has led the nation since 2005.

Opposition leaders and civil society activists warn that these changes are a calculated move to indefinitely prolong Gnassingbé’s leadership. Meanwhile, government supporters contend that the reforms enhance institutional transparency and inclusivity. Tensions flared into violence in 2025, with civil society reporting seven fatalities during protests, while prosecutors cited five deaths by drowning.

The controversy reached a legal turning point on January 29, when the ECOWAS Court of Justice ruled that the constitutional amendments amounted to an “unconstitutional change of government.” The Togolese government swiftly rejected the verdict, arguing that the court overstepped its authority by intervening in matters of domestic constitutional law, insisting its jurisdiction is confined to human rights and community law compliance.