A Friendship Under Scrutiny
A swirling controversy has erupted in recent days, stemming from a letter that surfaced on social media. The correspondence, penned by lawyer and essayist Juan Branco, was addressed to Ousmane Sonko during his tenure as Prime Minister of the Republic of Senegal.
In the letter, dated February 4, 2025, Branco outlines five significant areas where he seeks the intervention of his close friend, Ousmane Sonko.
Judicial Pressure and National Sovereignty
Regarding a rogatory commission from a Spanish judge about his abduction in Mauritania, Juan Branco delicately requests that Ousmane Sonko apply pressure on Senegal’s judicial authorities to ensure their smooth cooperation. To bolster his case, he questions the sovereignty of the Senegalese state, suggesting French interference in the handling of the matter.
Access to State Secrets
Branco also asks for access to Senegalese intelligence documents concerning him from the previous political administration under President Macky Sall, particularly any information related to French secret services. The lawyer asserts he is the target of a “very powerful counter-narrative” in France, which is fueling disciplinary and criminal proceedings against him. He points to a specific incident in October 2023, just before a crucial hearing in Senegal, which he describes as a Kompromat attempt involving at least one Senegalese agent. Such a request for classified information constitutes an incitement to breach national defense secrets (Article 61 et seq. of the Senegalese Penal Code), a violation of professional secrecy (Article 371), and the offense of communicating non-communicable information.
Intervention in International Justice
In the context of the criminal proceedings in France and at the ICC concerning alleged crimes against humanity by former President Sall, Juan Branco implores direct action from Sonko, including on the financial front. This appeal for direct intervention places both men in serious legal and political jeopardy due to the flagrant violations of established legal frameworks. From a criminal law perspective, asking the Prime Minister to hand over intelligence files outside of a judge’s official request is a direct incitement to violate national defense and professional secrecy—offenses severely punished by Senegalese law. For the lawyer, obtaining these classified documents would immediately make him guilty of receiving state secrets. Furthermore, requesting public or party (via PASTEF) funding for private legal proceedings in France, when the Senegalese state is not a civil party, carries a major risk of misappropriation of public funds or misuse of political assets. By bypassing official judicial channels in favor of a private arrangement based on political proximity, this approach undermines the credibility of international procedures and turns a quest for justice into a series of potential criminal acts.
Nationality and Official Appointments
Juan Branco reminds the Prime Minister of his previously expressed wish, dating back to May 2024, to represent the Republic of Senegal at the United Nations in New York. He argues his appointment would have carried significant symbolic and political weight, aligning with the new regime’s “sovereignist and pan-Africanist” stance, and insists he would have loyally represented the Senegalese President despite his French nationality. Having learned through the press that another diplomat was selected, he shifts to a new request: obtaining Senegalese citizenship through exceptional presidential prerogative. This naturalization would enable him to join the Senegal Bar Association and teach at the Cheikh Anta Diop University (UCAD) in Dakar. This section reveals an attempt by Branco to circumvent republican and professional rules by soliciting discretionary favors. His requests for nationality and direct intervention to secure positions at the Bar and UCAD violate the principles of equality before the law and institutional independence. His previous ambition to represent Senegal at the UN also posed a significant risk of conflict of interest and geopolitical interference due to his French citizenship. Beyond these transgressions, this passage highlights a profound shift in his relationship with Sonko. The lawyer, positioning himself as a moral creditor for past sacrifices like detention and kidnapping, attempts to cash in on his activism for positions of political and symbolic influence. With a sense of bitterness at being sidelined from diplomatic circles by a government now bound by state realities, Branco’s dynamic with Sonko transitions from a militant alliance to a relationship of quiet claims, where demands for administrative and financial favors replace his political disillusionment.
Financial Reckoning
On the topic of finances, Juan Branco provides a summary of funds received. He states he was paid a total of 15,000 euros in fees between 2023 and 2025. This sum includes 2,000 euros for expenses provided by his Senegalese colleague, Maître Bamba Cissé, during a trip to Dakar. He clarifies that this money was used for material costs like plane tickets and travel, as well as office expenses for interns and collaborators related to the “representation mandate” from Sonko’s camp. He concludes by stating these amounts are far from sufficient to cover his time, the costs associated with his abduction and detention, and the legal proceedings he faces in France. This part of the letter exposes an opaque and informal financial management that leaves both friends vulnerable to serious criminal and ethical risks. By detailing the 15,000 euros received through indirect channels for a “representation mandate,” Branco underscores the complete absence of a formal, legal contract with the State of Senegal. If these were public funds, the private transaction, conducted outside the strict procurement procedures of the State Judicial Agency, could legally be considered a misappropriation of public money. The financial opacity also borders on non-compliance with invoicing and capital flow traceability rules. In their personal relationship, this financial accounting marks a pragmatic turning point. Having failed in his political ambitions (UN, UCAD), the lawyer now presents the bill for his activism, emphasizing his physical sacrifices to demand financial compensation. This transforms what was portrayed as an ideological and selfless alliance into a purely transactional and commercial power dynamic.
