Togo: controversy after comments from retired security forces in support of Faure Gnassingbé

According to a widely circulated video, retired defense and security forces expressed public support for the Togolese Prime Minister in a statement, using particularly engaged phrases such as “your enemies are our enemies,” “our champion,” and the idea of “fighting to the last drop.” These expressions, in a country where the military has historically held a central position in political life, have been perceived by several observers as a troubling shift between personal tribute, partisan commitment, and symbolic intimidation.

The controversy arises in a sensitive political context. Since the constitutional reform of 2024, Togo has shifted into a Fifth Republic that has profoundly altered the power structure. Faure Gnassingbé is no longer the President of the Republic since May 2025 but serves as Prime Minister, a position now at the heart of the executive power. The presidency, held by Jean-Lucien Savi de Tové, has become essentially honorary.

In this new institutional order, any public statement in favor of Faure Gnassingbé, especially when it comes from figures within the military or security circles, takes on a particular political significance. Critics argue that the vocabulary used refers less to loyalty to the institutions than to personal fidelity to the man who holds most of the executive power.

A Highly Symbolic Date

The timing of the statements has also heightened the sensitivity of the issue. June 6 marks Faure Gnassingbé’s birthday, but this date is also associated with a recent sequence of protest. In June 2025, demonstrations erupted amid tensions over constitutional reform, the high cost of living, and restrictions on civic space. The June 6 Movement, or M66, emerged within this protest dynamic.

One year later, the emergence of supportive statements for the head of the executive, with references to “enemies” and “combat,” has rekindled concerns among some in the public. Detractors of this statement argue that the issue lies not only in the support expressed for Faure Gnassingbé but also in how political disagreement seems to be framed as a form of hostility to be combated.

At this stage, no specific official reaction directly linked to this controversy has been made. Togolese authorities have not publicly clarified whether these comments are a private initiative, a structured collective, or an organized stance. This lack of clarification also fuels questions.

The Weight of Togo’s Political-Military History

The controversy resonates strongly due to Togo’s political history. Since independence, the country has been marked by a deep intertwining of the military and power. The coup d’état of 1963, which led to the assassination of Sylvanus Olympio, followed by the 1967 coup that brought Gnassingbé Eyadéma to power, has permanently placed the military factor at the center of national political life.

This memory remains vivid. In 2005, at the death of Gnassingbé Eyadéma, the military played a decisive role in installing Faure Gnassingbé, before regional and international pressure led to the organization of an election. This sequence, followed by post-electoral violence, remains a central marker in the perception of relations between political power and the security apparatus in Togo.

Current reactions are rooted in this history. For some in civil society and opposition, the comments attributed to retired military personnel evoke a political culture where loyalty to the leader may appear stronger than attachment to institutions. For others, it could be seen as a simple tribute from former state servants to a political figure they support.

A Case Revealing Current Tensions

Beyond the statement itself, the affair reveals the fragilities of the Togolese political climate. Since the constitutional reform, the opposition and several civil society organizations have denounced a concentration of power around Faure Gnassingbé. The authorities, on their part, advocate for a new institutional balance presented as a parliamentary regime adapted to the realities of the country.

In this context, the vocabulary used by former military personnel takes on a particular dimension. Even in retirement, these figures remain associated with authority, order, and the legitimate use of force. When they use confrontational terms, they may blur the lines between civic engagement, political support, and symbolic pressure on opponents.

The central question, therefore, is that of republican neutrality. Can active or retired defense and security forces intervene publicly in political debate with a language of personal loyalty and combat? For critics, such a stance undermines the idea of an impartial state and reinforces the perception of power backed by a security memory.