Benin: Constitutional Court rules on appeals filed by Olivier Boko and Oswald Homeky
In the ongoing case linked to the alleged foiled coup involving businessman Olivier Boko and former minister Oswald Homeky, Benin’s Constitutional Court has delivered decisions on two appeals filed by their legal teams.
Oswald Homeky, Colonel Djimon Dieudonné Tévoèdjrè and Olivier Boko
The first appeal targeted the investigating judges of the appellate chamber of the Cour de répression des infractions économiques et du terrorisme (CRIET). The defense lawyers accused the magistrates of violating the Constitution and the organic law governing the Constitutional Court by confirming the referral of the case to the trial chamber without considering their procedural objections, including a motion for unconstitutionality and a request to recuse certain judges.
The lawyers argued that the investigating judges disregarded their submissions, falsely claimed that no briefs had been filed, and thus breached:
- Article 122 of the Constitution
- Article 37(5) of the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court
- Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)
- Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
The accused judges defended their actions by citing judicial deliberation secrecy and procedural norms. They argued that no submissions or constitutional exceptions were received within the set deadline and that, in a collegial decision, no judge could be held individually responsible.
The Constitutional Court first confirmed the admissibility of the appeals under Article 3(3) of the Constitution and Article 32(2) of its internal rules. However, regarding the alleged violations, the Court ruled:
- There was no evidence that the defense’s motion for unconstitutionality was submitted within the proper deadline.
- Without such proof, the Court rejected the claims based on Articles 122 of the Constitution and 37(5) of the organic law.
- As a result, it found no need to examine the alleged violations of the ACHPR and UDHR, nor the constitutionality of the referral decision by CRIET’s appellate chamber.
- The Court ultimately concluded there was no violation of the Constitution.
Separate appeal by Me Ayodélé Ahounou
A second appeal was filed by attorney Me Ayodélé Ahounou, who challenged the fact that judges forwarded an unconstitutionality motion to the Constitutional Court without suspending their proceedings, which he argued breached constitutional protections.
The Court responded by noting that it had already declared the said motion inadmissible for failing to meet legal standards. Since the exception had been previously dismissed, it deemed itself incompetent to rule on how it was handled thereafter.