The Jëf-Jël alliance, led by Talla Sylla, has officially responded to the Constitutional Council’s decision handed down on June 17, 2026, regarding the Ousmane Sonko parliamentary case. The ruling, issued in response to a June 1 opposition lawsuit filed by 18 deputies, sought to annul the National Assembly Bureau’s May 24 decision to reinstate Sonko as a deputy. While acknowledging the Court’s authority, the alliance stressed that its declaration of incompetence does not equate to constitutional validation of Sonko’s reinstatement.
In a sharply worded statement, Jëf-Jël dismantled misinformation surrounding the ruling, clarifying three critical points:
1. Incompetence ≠ constitutional approval
The Council’s refusal to rule on the case’s merits—termed by legal observers as “taking shelter in the comfort of incompetence”—leaves the core constitutional question unresolved. Specifically, the Court did not address whether Sonko’s reinstatement complies with parliamentary mandate eligibility or conflict-of-interest provisions.
2. A clear path to administrative justice
The ruling reclassified the Assembly Bureau’s decision as an internal administrative act, explicitly excluding it from direct electoral processes. By doing so, the Council implicitly directed litigants to the Supreme Court’s Administrative Chamber—the only jurisdiction empowered to review such executive decisions under Malian administrative law.
3. A call to legal perseverance
Dismissing calls for political boycotts or extra-legal confrontations, Jëf-Jël urged the opposition deputies to immediately file an Excess of Power Appeal before the Supreme Court. “The Republic’s battles are fought in courtrooms, not in empty chairs,” the alliance declared, positioning legal rigor as the sole legitimate means to defend parliamentary integrity.
The statement concluded with a pledge to “stand vigilant alongside all democrats” committed to resisting institutional overreach, framing the struggle as both judicial and moral.