It has now become undeniably evident that the narrative regarding the so-called “hidden debt,” first introduced during a press conference by Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko on September 26, 2024, was a significant fabrication. Despite warnings from seasoned analysts at the time, a vast propaganda effort was deployed to keep these unfounded claims alive in the public discourse.
Now that the individual at the center of this controversy admits to having shared something other than the truth, and considering the damaging repercussions this has had on the credibility of Sénégal, its international partnerships, and the daily lives of its citizens, a critical question arises: Can the Public Prosecutor pursue Ousmane Sonko for economic treason, the dissemination of false economic information, and deception? Furthermore, should those who facilitated this narrative also face legal scrutiny for their complicity?
Distinguishing political rhetoric from institutional responsibility
To evaluate this situation, one must separate political disagreement from legal liability. The issue is not merely what was said, but who said it, the context of the statement, and the resulting impact on the trust placed in the State. While Ousmane Sonko has recently attempted to pivot, suggesting in media interviews that he was merely expressing an opinion as a political party leader, this defense faces significant legal and institutional hurdles.
Under Article 57 of the Constitution, the Prime Minister directs the Administration. Therefore, statements made by such a high-ranking official cannot be dismissed as simple partisan posturing. These declarations carried the weight of the State and directly influenced the confidence of Sénégal’s international financial partners. The “hidden debt” sequence was not just a campaign speech; it was a formal government press conference involving the Prime Minister, the Secretary General of the Government, and the Ministers of Economy and Justice. By presenting these claims with such gravity in institutional settings, the words became official State communications, not mere political rhetoric.
Technical findings versus political spin
While political critique is a standard part of democracy, allegations presented within an institutional framework that impact public or financial trust must be backed by solid evidence. Without such proof, the authors face not just political backlash, but institutional accountability. This brings us to the role of the Court of Auditors. To understand the gap between reality and political framing, one must look at the actual findings of the body responsible for overseeing public accounts.
Recent clarifications from Mamadou Faye, the former head of the Court of Auditors, have reignited the debate. He noted that the term “hidden debt” appears nowhere in the official report. This distinction is vital, as it separates the technical observations of the Court from the political interpretations layered on top of them. For two years, the nation was embroiled in a sterile debate while the technical methodology of the Court—using the Table of Government Financial Operations (TOFE)—was being misrepresented. The lack of an explicit mention of “hidden debt” in the report severely weakens the political narrative used to justify recent economic claims.
Consequences for the financial credibility of Sénégal
This deception has had tangible costs. The prolonged uncertainty has weakened the financial standing of Sénégal, creating doubt among economic actors and negatively impacting the assessments of international rating agencies. Public officials must be held responsible for the predictable outcomes of their words, especially when those words target the integrity of public accounts and the State’s ability to meet its obligations.
Reckless government communication regarding national debt can erode market confidence, trigger negative investor reactions, and lead to a downgrade in sovereign ratings, which ultimately increases the cost of borrowing. These factors shrink the national budget, stifle investment, and threaten employment. Following the release of the Court of Auditors’ report, the priority should have been administrative and budgetary corrections—improving accounting transparency and clarifying responsibilities—rather than turning administrative discrepancies into a political scandal.
The necessity of verifiable public speech
This requirement for accuracy extends beyond the debt issue. It applies to all sensational economic claims, such as the alleged existence of 1,000 billion CFA francs in an account belonging to a former official. Such assertions by public figures must be supported by verifiable facts that can be reviewed by the judiciary or oversight bodies. Without evidence, these claims only serve to breed confusion and weaken institutional trust.
The call for the Prosecutor to act is not about partisan bickering; it is about the principle that public speech from a government authority must be proportionate and verifiable. When economic declarations threaten the financial stability of the State, the law must determine if they fall under protected political debate or if they constitute a breach of legal standards.
Looking forward: Challenges for the Court of Auditors
The credibility of the State depends on the ability of oversight institutions to provide clear and indisputable findings. The newly appointed leadership at the Court of Auditors faces several key missions over the next few years:
- Ensuring the consistent and timely publication of annual reports.
- Aligning the Court with international standards through comprehensive reforms.
- Integrating technical experts—such as petroleum engineers, infrastructure specialists, and public health experts—into the auditing process.
- Enhancing the professionalization of the Court’s roles, specifically in account certification and the evaluation of public policies.
