The 1992 Consensus Code emerged in a climate of political crisis marked by disputes over the 1988 elections. To restore confidence and pacify the political scene, Abdou Diouf initiated a dialogue with the opposition and civil society, resulting in a joint text establishing clear rules for voter registration, the eligibility and ineligibility of candidates, while entrusting the Constitutional Council with a central oversight role. This code aimed to guarantee the transparency and legitimacy of elections. Articles L.3 and L.4, originating from this text, have since evolved: reintroduced in 1997 ( L.5 and L.6 ), renumbered in 2012 ( L.30 and L.31 ), maintained in 2014 and 2017 ( L.31 and L.32 ), and then established in 2018 as L.29 and L.30 .

If Abdou Diouf and Abdoulaye Wade did not use these provisions to block candidacies, it was because their regimes were based on a logic of openness and legitimation through consensus or pluralism. Abdou Diouf sought to ease tensions and lend credibility to the democratic transition, while Wade aimed to promote the diversity of candidacies to reinforce the pluralistic image of his power.

Conversely, Macky Sall , facing a fragmented opposition and increased competition, applied these articles strictly against the most prominent figures (Khalifa Sall, Ousmane Sonko), while introducing in 2018 the notion of "voter" in article L.57, which notably concerned Karim Wade.

Today , some members of parliament are discussing modifying or removing these provisions, particularly in connection with Ousmane Sonko's candidacy. However, these articles remain essential to the credibility of the electoral process. Any reform must be carried out with caution: it is preferable to maintain eligibility under the exclusive control of a judge, following a political consensus involving all stakeholders, in order to preserve the transparency and legitimacy of elections in Senegal.

However , during the Dialogue on the Political System held on May 28, 2025, the issue of electoral disqualification pronounced exclusively by a judge was addressed within Commission 1: Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights. This point, however, sparked disagreement among the participants (see GENERAL REPORT OF THE 2025 NATIONAL DIALOGUE, page 20 ).

Regarding voter disqualification , it was noted that it can be automatic, resulting from an accessory penalty stipulated in the Electoral Code, or stem from a supplementary penalty imposed by a judge under the Penal Code. Some participants cited Constitutional Council Decision No. 3/C/21, which declared constitutional the provisions of the Electoral Code relating to the automatic disqualification of a person from voting following a final conviction for one of the penalties provided for in current legislation. The current position is to maintain these two systems of voter disqualification, underpinned by differing views on this essentially legal issue.

The Pastef party must avoid fueling unfounded fears, while the National Assembly should refrain from proposing laws perceived as tailor-made for one individual. In reality, to date, no law can prevent Ousmane Sonko from participating in an election in Senegal, due to the amnesty law upheld by case law.

-Article 1 of the amnesty law n°2024-09 of March 13, 2024 : "All acts, qualifying as crimes or offenses, committed in Senegal or abroad between February 1, 2021 and February 25, 2024, are automatically granted amnesty, provided that they are based on an exclusively political motivation, including when they have been perpetrated by means of communication.

-Judgment No. 01 of January 4, 2024 (Sonko v. Mame Mbaye Niang case ): The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Senegal ruled that imprisonment for debt cannot be applied in cases of press offenses (defamation, public insults, etc.). By ordering it, the Court of Appeal violated the law, since Article 711 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly excludes it.

-Judgment No. 71 of June 15, 1999 (Court of Cassation) : The Court reiterated that, according to Article 711 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , imprisonment for debt can never be ordered for a political offense, press offenses being considered political offenses in this respect. It follows that, in ordering imprisonment for debt against the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal did not provide a legally sufficient justification for its decision.

In reality, there is a simple solution to dispel any concern: it was enough to use article L.40 of the Electoral Code , which provides for automatic removal during the consolidation phase of the electoral file, on the occasion of the ordinary revision of the lists in 2025. This provision also remains applicable in the event of an exceptional revision (2026), which means that the procedure always remains possible.

The law-abiding citizen