As the world turns its gaze toward Senegal’s upcoming Presidential elections, the once-praised bastion of democracy in West Africa finds itself ensnared in a disconcerting trend ~ the manipulation of elections through the strategic deployment of courts. While the international community’s election monitors prepare to don their “observer” vests, the incumbent party’s candidate, Mr Amadou Ba, has already secured an advantageous position, thanks to the intervention of the Constitutional Council. This judicial body, ostensibly responsible for handling electoral matters, recently disqualified several prominent candidates, including main opposition leader Ousmane Sonko.

His exclusion was based on accusations of defamation against a government minister, a crime in Senegal. The constitutional grounds for his disqualification raise questions about the blurred line between upholding the law and suppressing political opposition. The situation in Senegal is not unique. It echoes a growing pattern across Africa, from Benin to Zambia, where courts are increasingly becoming tools for tilting electoral playing fields. The paradox lies in the fact that this trend emerges in the wake of progress. Since the end of the Cold War, almost all African countries have embraced regular elections. While initially marred by blatant rigging, improved monitoring and parallel vote counts have made electoral malpractice more difficult. In response, ruling parties are adapting by employing pre-election strategies, often utilising the courts to obstruct formidable opposition candidates. This phenomenon poses a direct threat to the democratic fabric of African nations. By sidelining opposition figures through legal manoeuvres, ruling parties risk triggering protests, instability, and a decline in public support for democracy. Data reveals a concerning trend. The preference for democracy dropped from 75 per cent in 2012 to 66 per cent last year across several sub-Saharan countries. Moreover, the erosion of trust in the courts by 12 per cent over the same period compromises the rule of law, impacting investment and economic growth. Addressing this electoral lawfare demands a multifaceted approach. Internationally, there must be a shift toward greater scepticism regarding legal rulings with significant political consequences. Foreign diplomats and rights groups should not shy away from questioning the validity of such decisions, and challenge the assumption that incumbency guarantees stability.

On a domestic front, pro-democracy activists need to adapt their strategies. While successes have been achieved in safeguarding the integrity of election days, the focus must extend to the months and years leading up to the polls. This entails a sustained effort in judicial reform, a daunting task in regions where judges are often appointed based on loyalty to the ruling party rather than merit. The lack of security of tenure for judges further undermines their ability to rule impartially. Western countries and donors can play a pivotal role in supporting this reform by offering training and funding. While the allure of uncovering rigged ballot boxes might be more captivating, investing in judicial reform is a nuanced yet essential step towards fortifying the rule of law.