MP Guy Marius Sagna has submitted a new written question to the Minister of Health. At the heart of his inquiry is a connectivity contract deemed suspicious at the National Service for Education and Health and Social Information (SNEISS), but above all, management practices he describes as repressive. For the MP, the intimidation of public employees "constitutes a direct insult to the reforms promised by the highest levels of government."

According to Guy Marius Sagna, some directors and department heads respond to parliamentary inquiries not with arguments, but with threats. He specifically cites officials from OLAC, ARP, and APROSI, accused of sanctioning their staff as soon as a written question is submitted.

The case of SNEISS illustrates this trend. After being questioned about a disputed connectivity contract, management did not provide a technical response but chose the disciplinary route.

The MP revealed the existence of an internal memo dated April 23, 2026, circulated shortly after the announcement of his written question. This document reminds staff of "their duty of discretion and the threat of sanctions if they contact external authorities without going through the chain of command," the MP stated.

For Guy Marius Sagna, this approach aims to identify and punish agents who collaborate with elected officials. "Why accept being appointed to a government that promotes 'Jub, Jubal, Jubbanti' if it's to fire and threaten as soon as questions are asked?" he asks.

Beyond simply stating the facts, the MP places the Minister of Health before his responsibilities and poses two essential questions:

- Does the minister endorse these threats as an official response to parliamentary questions?

- What measures will be taken to remind department heads that the National Assembly is the second highest institution in the country and that any obstruction is intolerable?

By linking this case to the whistleblower law, Guy Marius Sagna highlights a major contradiction. For him, while the State legally protects those who denounce wrongdoing, department heads cannot invoke the "duty of discretion" to cover up questionable management practices.