Special credits: the government wants to strengthen transparency while respecting the legal framework

The government intends to strengthen transparency in the management of public funds while consolidating citizens’ confidence in institutions. This is the meaning of the intervention of the Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals, before the National Assembly, during the examination of the organic law proposal No. 38/2026 modifying the organic law relating to finance laws (LOLF).

The minister recalled that this proposal comes after the decision of the Constitutional Council No. 7/C/2026 of August 25, 2026, which declared inadmissible a previous proposal relating to the legal regime of special credits. According to this decision, the ordinary legislator could not create an autonomous category of public credits nor define its legal regime, this matter falling within the domain of the organic law relating to finance laws.

The government welcomes the new legal vehicle

The text submitted to the deputies now takes the path of an organic law modifying organic law no. 2020-07 of February 26, 2020 relating to finance laws. The government therefore considers that the normative vehicle adopted is consistent with the Constitution.

The minister, however, stressed that this conformity did not exempt from a thorough examination of the text. In terms of form, he noted in particular that the initial title of the proposal did not correspond exactly to that under which the organic law of 2020 had been published in the Official Journal. This wording has since been corrected by the National Assembly, allowing the government to withdraw its first amendment.

Three points of vigilance on special credits

Basically, the minister identified three main difficulties.

The first concerns the connection of credits or special funds to the notion of constitutional institution. According to the government, article 12 of the LOLF groups together in the same allocation the budgetary appropriations directly intended for the exercise of the constitutional missions of an institution. Therefore, distinguishing the credits or special funds from this allocation would amount to separating them from a component that the government considers to be indivisible.

The second difficulty concerns the compliance of the system with Directive No. 06/2009/CM/UEMOA of June 26, 2009. The Minister considers that the special credits or funds do not present sufficient budgetary specificity to justify treatment distinct from that already provided for constitutional institutions or to be assimilated to other categories of allocations.

The third point concerns the scheduling of these credits. Article 65 of the LOLF designates the Minister responsible for Finance as authorizing allocations other than those of constitutional institutions, without specifying the authority responsible for authorizing the new allocation devoted to credits or special funds. For the government, this absence creates a legal void likely to pose difficulties during budget execution.

Two amendments proposed by the government

To respond to these difficulties, the government submitted two amendments to deputies. The first concerns Article 14. It aims to delete the last indent devoted to special credits or funds and to link these expenditures to the allocation of constitutional institutions. This modification also entails the deletion of the last paragraph of article 14, which referred to the law the establishment of the methods of control of these credits. The government proposes to replace it with a reference to article 67, devoted to the conditions of execution of all grants.

The second amendment relates to article 70. It aims to restore the precision according to which the Finance Commission exercises its control during annual management and to remove the power to control the use of appropriations at the end of each budgetary management. The government considers that this last provision would encroach on the powers of the Court of Auditors.

The amendment also provides for bringing the ability to hear ministers into line with the Internal Regulations of the National Assembly.

Transparency and institutional balance

For the government, these amendments do not call into question the objective of transparency pursued by the proposed organic law. Rather, they aim to place the device in the appropriate legal category, in accordance with the community directive and the distribution of powers between law and regulation.

The Minister of Justice insisted on this concept of transparency, presented not as a constraint, but as a means of consolidating the rule of law and strengthening citizens’ confidence in institutions. However, he stressed that this transparency must be organized in compliance with the hierarchy of standards, institutional balances and requirements linked to the protection of the higher interests of the Nation.

The government calls for a single vote

In conclusion, the minister requested, on behalf of the government, that the National Assembly carry out a single vote on the text under discussion, retaining only the amendments proposed or accepted by the government.

He presented this request as a “blocked vote” mechanism, provided for by the Constitution and intended, according to the government, to guarantee the consistency of texts and the effectiveness of government action. The minister specified that the government had decided to take advantage of it “in the sole interest of the legal coherence of the system and the effectiveness of State action”.

The minister finally expressed the hope that the parliamentary discussions would result in a balanced text, consistent with the Constitution and the principles of good governance and solidarity which inspire the government’s action.