Togo protests against constitutional reform

Several hundred people demonstrated in Vogan, southern Togo, on Sunday to protest the new constitution adopted in 2024, accusing the ruling party of allowing President Faure Gnassingbé to perpetuate his power.

The rally, organized by the National Concertation Framework for Change in Togo (CNCC), which brings together several opposition parties and civil society organizations, took place about 60 kilometers from Lomé. It was the second meeting of this coalition in three months, after a first mobilization held at the beginning of May, in a context where opposition protests remain infrequent.

Protesters carried banners with slogans such as "No to unconstitutional government change" or "Constitutional coup d'État," denouncing a reform they consider illegitimate.

"The 2024 constitution is completely illegal. It's a constitutional coup that the Togolese will never accept," said David Dosseh, spokesman for the Front Citizen Togo Debout (FCTD), one of the organizations behind the mobilization.

The new Basic Law, which entered into force in 2024, fundamentally modified Togo’s institutions. It ended direct presidential elections and established a parliamentary system. The post of President of the Council, now the highest executive position in the country, is occupied by Faure Gnassingbé, who has been in power since 2005.

Opposition groups and civil society actors believe this reform aims to extend his rule indefinitely. In contrast, the ruling party defends a text that, according to them, strengthens the representativeness of institutions.

Tensions surrounding this reform have already led to protests in 2025, resulting in seven deaths according to civil society, while the prosecution cites five deaths due to drowning.

In an order issued on January 29th, the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (CEDEAO) ruled that this reform constituted "a change in unconstitutional government". The Togolese government rejected this decision, claiming that the court exceeded its competences, limited to controlling respect for human rights and community law, without being able to pronounce on domestic constitutional legality.