Mali’s Union nationale pour l’intégrité et la souveraineté (UNIS) has sharply criticized a Supreme Court ruling that dismissed its emergency motion to block Ousmane Sonko’s installation as president of the National Assembly. The opposition group insists it will pursue its legal challenge on the merits and has formally requested that the Supreme Court’s full bench review the jurisdictional dispute.

The controversy stems from a June 25, 2026 order by the Supreme Court’s emergency judge, who ruled that UNIS’s request for an injunction was inadmissible. The organization’s president, Amadou Gueye, condemned the decision as creating a ‘negative conflict of jurisdiction’ and a ‘denial of justice.’

UNIS had filed two parallel motions: first, an appeal to annul the administrative act by the Assembly Bureau installing Sonko, and second, an emergency petition to suspend its implementation. The group argued that the June 17, 2026 Constitutional Council decision—which declared itself incompetent to rule on the matter, classifying the contested act as an administrative rather than legislative measure—implicitly recognized the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the dispute.

However, the emergency judge rejected the suspension request, citing the principle of separation of powers and asserting that the Supreme Court cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the National Assembly. UNIS contends this reasoning is legally flawed, warning that it creates a dangerous legal vacuum where no court will accept jurisdiction over the case. The organization emphasizes that judicial oversight of legislative acts remains essential to prevent abuses, pointing to recent Constitutional Council rulings that struck down constitutional reform provisions as evidence of judicial authority over institutional acts.

In its statement, UNIS warns that the Supreme Court’s position could allow the Assembly Bureau to operate beyond legal scrutiny, enabling administrative decisions to evade judicial review entirely. Despite the rejection of its emergency motion, the group confirms it will proceed with its substantive appeal for annulment before the full court. It has specifically requested that the Supreme Court’s chambers convene to rule on their jurisdiction and resolve what they describe as a threat to legal certainty. The organization urges magistrates to fully exercise their constitutional role in this matter, framing it as a pivotal test for the balance of power between Mali’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches.