It is now undeniably established that the narrative surrounding the so-called “hidden debt,” first introduced during a press conference by Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko on September 26, 2024, was a fabrication. While informed analysts had issued warnings at the time, a significant propaganda effort worked to keep these unfounded claims alive in the public discourse.

With the individual at the center of these claims now conceding that his statements were not grounded in truth, and considering the damaging effects on the international reputation of Sénégal, its partnerships, and the daily lives of its citizens, a critical question arises: should the public prosecutor initiate proceedings against Ousmane Sonko for economic treason, the dissemination of false economic information, and deception? Furthermore, should those who facilitated the spread of this misinformation also face legal scrutiny?

Addressing this requires a clear separation between political theater and legal accountability. The issue is not merely the content of the speech, but the status of the speaker, the official setting of the remarks, and the resulting erosion of trust in the State. In recent public statements, Ousmane Sonko attempted to distance himself from the fallout by claiming he was speaking as a political leader expressing an opinion. However, this creates a significant institutional problem. Allegations that harm the perception of the national economy cannot be dismissed as mere partisan rhetoric when they are delivered by a high-ranking government official. As Prime Minister, his words carry the weight of the State and directly impact the confidence of international partners.

The timeline of the “hidden debt” saga highlights this contradiction. By suggesting he was acting as a party head and lacked full access to state data at the time, Ousmane Sonko is trying to retreat into the role of a political opponent. Yet, the facts show these claims were made during a formal government press conference, flanked by the Secretary General of the Government, the Minister of Economy, and the Minister of Justice. The gravity of the situation was emphasized in official settings, including the Prime Minister’s office and before the National Assembly. Under such conditions, these were not private opinions; they were official declarations that committed the authority of the State.

The role of the Court of Accounts

While political critique is a right, institutional accusations that impact financial stability must be backed by evidence. This leads to the findings of the Court of Accounts. Mamadou Faye, the former head of this institution, recently clarified that the term “hidden debt” is entirely absent from the official report. This distinction is vital, as it separates technical audit findings from political spin.

For two years, the nation was led into a circular debate by Ousmane Sonko and Bassirou Diomaye Faye based on these claims. The Court of Accounts’ report from February 2025 focused on standard budgetary and financial operations, using established methods like the Table of Government Financial Operations. The absence of any mention of “hidden debt” undermines the political narrative and shifts the focus toward whether the public presentation of these figures was accurate and legally responsible.

Impact on Sénégal’s financial standing

This misinformation has had tangible consequences. It weakened the financial credibility of Sénégal, created uncertainty for economic players, and influenced the assessments of international rating agencies. Public officials must be held accountable for the predictable results of their speech, particularly when it involves the integrity of public accounts and the nation’s ability to meet its obligations.

Reckless government communication regarding national debt can alienate investors, lead to sovereign credit downgrades, and increase borrowing costs. These factors ultimately tighten the national budget, stifle investment, and threaten employment. Beyond the debt issue, similar unverified claims—such as the alleged existence of 1,000 billion CFA francs in a private account belonging to a former official—further damage institutional trust. Such explosive claims require proof that can stand up in a court of law.

The demand for a prosecutorial investigation is not a partisan attack but a call for institutional stability. Public speech from government authorities must be verifiable and responsible. When economic declarations threaten a country’s financial standing, the law must determine if such actions cross the line from political debate into legal liability.

Future challenges for the Court of Accounts

The appointment of a new First President to the Court of Accounts marks a significant moment for the institution. As he begins this transitional mission, four primary objectives must be met:

  • Ensuring the consistent and timely publication of annual reports.
  • Finalizing reforms to align the institution with global standards.
  • Integrating technical experts—such as engineers in the oil, gas, and infrastructure sectors, as well as public health specialists—to enhance audit capabilities and public transparency.
  • Advancing the professionalization of the Court’s functions, specifically in policy evaluation and account certification.