At the heart of any rule of law, the Constitution embodies the popular will and institutional stability. However, glaring inconsistencies have been noted between the constitutional text submitted to the referendum and that published in the Official Journal. Alerted by our audience, the Gaboné2025 collective undertook an in-depth investigation to shed light on these opaque modifications.

The facts are serious. These alterations are not limited to technical adjustments: they betray the meaning of the citizen vote, compromise legal safeguards and expose the country to crises of interpretation with unpredictable consequences. By affecting the legitimacy of the referendum and the integrity of the fundamental text, these changes weaken two essential symbols of our democracy.

This report does not just detail the changes in question. It questions their scope, their legitimacy and seeks to understand the motivations, conscious or not, behind these acts. Because beyond the texts, it is the future of Gabon and the trust in its institutions that are at stake.

Analysis of the divergences noted between the text of the Gabonese Constitution submitted to the referendum and that published in the Official Journal.

Text submitted to the Referendum: View the document

Text published in the Official Journal: View the document

1. Article 164: a weakening of institutional control

• Version submitted to referendum: "The Gabonese Republic, concerned with achieving African unity, may sovereignly conclude any sub-regional or regional integration agreement, in accordance with the articles 165 And 166 of this Constitution."
• Version published in the Official Journal: "The Gabonese Republic [...] in accordance with the articles 162 And 163 of this Constitution."

Problematic : The transition from Articles 165 and 166 (constitutional control and primacy of treaties) to Articles 162 and 163 (parliamentary procedures) weakens the framework for control over international treaties.

In-depth analysis :

1. Nature of the amended references:
• In the text submitted to the referendum, Articles 165 and 166 specify fundamental mechanisms related to the constitutional control of international agreements and the primacy of treaties over national laws, subject to their conformity with the Constitution. These provisions strengthen the role of the Constitutional Court as guarantor of the regularity of international commitments.
• In the published version, the cross-references have been changed to point to Articles 162 and 163, which focus on parliamentary procedures for ratifying treaties. These articles, while important, omit the critical dimension of constitutional control and the hierarchy of international norms.
2. Implications for institutional control:
• The removal of the explicit reference to the Constitutional Court (Articles 165 and 166) limits its role in assessing the conformity of international treaties with the Constitution.
• By placing greater emphasis on parliamentary procedures, the published version risks reducing legal control mechanisms, particularly in cases where international commitments could infringe on national sovereignty or fundamental rights.
3. Impact on national sovereignty:
• International commitments, particularly in the context of regional or sub-regional integration agreements, imply concessions of sovereignty. By minimizing the role of the Constitutional Court, Gabon's ability to protect its fundamental interests in these agreements could be weakened.
4. Comparison of the articles concerned:
• Article 165 (submitted version): "If the Constitutional Court, seized by the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, one tenth (1/10) of Deputies or one tenth (1/10) of Senators, declares that an international commitment contains a clause contrary to the Constitution, authorization to ratify it can only occur after revision of the Constitution."
• This article establishes an essential safeguard to prevent international agreements from circumventing the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
• Article 162 (published version): "The President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies international treaties and agreements after the vote on an authorisation law by Parliament [...]."
• This article emphasizes the role of Parliament but omits the need for prior constitutional control.

Legal implications:

• The amendment weakens institutional control over international agreements, particularly those that may affect national sovereignty or constitutional rights.
• By reducing the role of the Constitutional Court, the published text limits the possibilities of legal challenge in the event of conflicts between international commitments and the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

2. Article 168: ambiguity regarding constitutional revisions

• Version submitted to referendum: "The revision of the Constitution cannot be initiated or completed during the exercise of the exceptional powers provided for in Article 62. »
• Version published in the Official Journal: "The review [...] during the exercise of the exceptional powers provided for in Article 63. »

Problematic : The reference to Article 63 seems more coherent (exceptional powers), but the change without consultation raises questions about popular will and transparency.

In-depth analysis:

1. Differences between Articles 62 and 63:
• Article 62 deals specifically with the dissolution of the National Assembly, a political act that limits the powers of Parliament for a given period.
• Article 63, on the other hand, deals with the exceptional powers exercised by the President in the event of a serious crisis. These powers allow for temporary derogation from constitutional rules in order to preserve the Nation.
2. Implications of the referral change:
• By moving from Article 62 to Article 63, the published version modifies the legal framework of the prohibitions related to constitutional revision. The new reference (Article 63) suggests that the revision of the Constitution is prohibited only when exceptional powers are exercised, and not in the contexts of parliamentary dissolution.
• This reduces the situations in which a constitutional amendment would be considered illegitimate, potentially expanding the possibilities for amending the Constitution even in times of political instability.
3. Impact on institutional stability:
• The change could be interpreted as an attempt to ease restrictions on constitutional revisions, particularly to allow for opportunistic changes in times of crisis.
• This weakens the guarantees provided to limit abuses of power and preserve the separation of powers in exceptional times.

Legal implications:

• This change raises questions about the transparency of the referendum process. Citizens voted on a different provision, which could constitute a violation of the principle of popular sovereignty.
• The amendment weakens the institutional safeguards aimed at framing constitutional revisions in critical periods.

Consequence: The legitimacy of this change may be contested.

3. Article 28: abolition of civic duties

• Version submitted to referendum: “Every citizen has the duty to respect and defend the national heritage and public property, and to contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment.”
• Version published in the Official Journal: “Every citizen has the duty to contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment.”

Problematic : The removal of the duty to respect and defend public property weakens the civic importance of protecting national resources and infrastructure.

In-depth analysis:

1. Nature of the modification:
• The version submitted to the referendum imposes on citizens an explicit duty to respect and defend national heritage and public property, stressing the importance of their preservation for the general interest.
• The published version omits this obligation, focusing only on environmental issues, which reduces the scope of citizen responsibilities.
2. Impact on the protection of public property:
• By removing the mention of public property, the text diminishes the constitutional commitment of citizens to the preservation of collective infrastructures and resources, thereby weakening awareness of the issues related to their management and use.
3. Risks to the general interest:
• The absence of this mention could encourage a lax perception of the importance of public goods, particularly in the face of practices of hoarding, destruction or mismanagement.
• The amendment weakens the institutional message that public goods constitute collective wealth that must be actively protected.
4. Symbolism and social implications:
• The removal of references to national heritage reduces the symbolic scope of civic engagement, contributing to dissociating the population from the values ​​of collective responsibility.

Legal implications:

• Reduction of constitutional obligations: The removal of this provision substantially changes the scope of civic duties without explicit consultation, which could be perceived as an alteration of the popular will.
• Weakening of protection standards: By failing to mention public property, the Constitution loses a legal lever to raise awareness and make citizens responsible for their preservation.

Consequence: Reduced civic responsibility.

4. Article 46: expanded powers for the interim president

• Version submitted to referendum: Excluded powers include, in particular, the dissolution of Parliament (Article 62) and exceptional powers (Article 63).
• Version published in the Official Journal: These exclusions have been replaced by less critical articles, potentially allowing the temporary worker to exercise these prerogatives.

Problematic : The absence of key exclusions weakens institutional safeguards.

In-depth analysis:

1. Dissolution of Parliament and exceptional powers: In the version submitted to the referendum, the dissolution of the National Assembly and the use of exceptional powers were explicitly excluded for the interim president. These exclusions guaranteed that the interim president could not take destabilizing measures or centralize power in the event of a vacancy or temporary incapacity.
2. Changes in the published version: The new list of excluded articles (articles 66 to 73, 145 and 156) does not include critical prerogatives previously prohibited, such as those concerning dissolution and exceptional powers. This offers the interim prerogatives potentially dangerous for the institutional balance.
3. Impact on political transition: The expansion of the interim's prerogatives could:
• Allowing opportunistic measures such as the dissolution of Parliament to reorganize the institutions in favor of a political group.
• Use exceptional powers to prolong a crisis situation and reduce institutional controls.

Legal implications:

• The absence of specific exclusions opens the way to challenges before the Constitutional Court, which could be asked to review the validity of these provisions in light of the popular will expressed in the referendum.

Consequence: Risks of abuse of power during transition.

5. Article 93: Amendments to the cases of meeting of the Congress

• Version submitted to referendum: Constitutional revision (in article 170) and exceptional communications from the President (in article 46).
• Version published in the Official Journal: Revision (in Article 167) and ordinary communications (in Article 59).

Problematic : The change reduces the scope of Congress's meetings, limiting its role in critical issues.

In-depth analysis:

1. Constitutional revision:
• Article 170 of the version submitted to referendum provided for rigorous revision procedures involving reinforced constitutional control. In the published version, the reference to Article 167 appears to simplify these procedures, potentially without popular consultation, which could weaken the legitimacy of future revisions.
2. Presidential Communications:
• Rule 46 referred to in the submitted text concerned exceptional communications by the President in times of crisis or transition. The published version refers to Rule 59, which deals with ordinary communications by the President. This change narrows the scope of cases in which Congress must meet.
3. Impact on the role of Congress:
• The reduction in the grounds for convening Congress weakens parliamentary control over critical decisions, particularly in times of crisis or during major revisions.

Legal implications:

• This amendment raises questions about transparency and respect for democratic procedures, as it reduces the involvement of parliamentary representatives in fundamental decisions.

Consequence: Weakening of parliamentary control.

Legal implications

1. Risk of partial nullity of the Constitution: If the divergences between the voted text and the published one are deemed substantial, this could lead to a legal challenge to the validity of the amended articles. A partial cancellation or a forced revision could then be imposed.
2. Institutional destabilization: The publication of provisions different from those validated by citizens could weaken confidence in institutions and generate political tensions.
3. Interpretive confusion: Changes in internal references and the removal of legal safeguards complicate the consistent application of the Constitution, creating a risk of contradictions between articles.

Two hypotheses

1. An intentional act?
   The changes could reflect a deliberate desire to alter the balance of powers by reducing institutional safeguards. If this hypothesis is confirmed, it would reflect an attack on the principle of popular sovereignty and a risk of authoritarian drift.
2. A lack of diligence?
   In the absence of intentionality, these divergences would be a result of negligence in the supervision of the constitutional process. Such amateurism, if proven, would further weaken confidence in the institutions and expose the legal order to legitimate challenges.

Scenario

In order to better understand the practical implications of the changes to the Gabonese Constitution, we have developed a hypothetical scenario. This aims to illustrate how these changes could be exploited in a specific and strategic context, in this case the installation of a US military base in Gabon.

This scenario is not an affirmation of intentions or current projects, but a simulation aimed at demonstrating in a practical way how these constitutional amendments offer new room for maneuver to the Executive, while weakening institutional safeguards. It highlights the differences between the initial text and the amended text, and shows how these alterations can facilitate rapid and discreet actions, to the detriment of transparency and popular sovereignty.

This approach allows us to explore the potential risks associated with the new provisions and to understand how they could be used in situations where the national interest and democratic balances could be jeopardised.

Scenario: Installation of an American military base and consolidation of Brice Oligui Nguema's power

General context

Gabon, strategically located on the west coast of Central Africa, is identified by the United States as a key partner to establish a military base. This installation, justified by objectives of the fight against terrorism and regional security, also interests Brice Oligui Nguema. In a context of political transition, this agreement represents an opportunity for him to strengthen his power, guarantee international support, and neutralize internal opponents. Thanks to recent constitutional amendments, he can orchestrate this project smoothly by circumventing the constraints of the initial text.

Step 1: Negotiation of the international agreement (Article 164)

Scenario
Brice Oligui Nguema begins discreet negotiations with the United States. These talks highlight regional instability, particularly piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, and the need for a US military presence to guarantee security. In return, Washington offers financial aid, diplomatic support, and direct military assistance. The agreement includes clauses allowing US forces broad autonomy on Gabonese territory, but these sensitive provisions are deliberately kept secret.

• With the text modified :

  • The reference to Article 162 places the responsibility for ratifying the agreement on Parliament, bypassing the control of the Constitutional Court provided for in Article 165 of the initial text.
  • The agreement can be negotiated and concluded by the Executive without a thorough assessment of its compliance with the Constitution, even if clauses affect national sovereignty.

• With the original text :

  • The agreement would have been subject to strict control by the Constitutional Court before ratification.
  • Any provision deemed contrary to the Constitution (for example, an implicit transfer of sovereignty) would have blocked or delayed implementation.
  • This process would have given opponents legal tools to challenge the deal.

Key difference :
The amended text allows for rapid and confidential negotiation, without requiring detailed constitutional analysis, making the agreement virtually incontestable upon signature.

Step 2: Simplified parliamentary validation (Article 93)

Scenario
Once the agreement was negotiated, Brice Oligui Nguema quickly introduced it to Parliament for validation. Sensitive details, such as clauses concerning the exclusive rights of American forces, were minimized in the discussions. Thanks to its majority in the National Assembly, the Executive obtained a favorable vote within a few days. The procedure was conducted discreetly to avoid a popular mobilization.

• With the text modified :

  • Article 93 limits the cases in which Congress (meeting of both houses) can be convened.
  • Oligui Nguema can avoid a public debate, ratifying the agreement by a simple law adopted by the National Assembly.
  • Discussions within Parliament are controlled and restricted, limiting the risk of criticism.

• With the original text :

  • Congress would have been convened to debate the deal.
  • This public debate would have allowed opponents to expose the controversial aspects of the agreement, attracting the attention of the population and the media.
  • The National Assembly and the Senate could have requested amendments or refused ratification.

Key difference :
The amended text makes it possible to neutralise parliamentary counter-powers, limiting debates and speeding up validation.

Step 3: Accelerated implementation through exceptional powers (Article 63)

Scenario
To justify the rapid installation of the base, Brice Oligui Nguema declared a security emergency. By invoking serious threats, such as a rise in regional tensions or internal unrest, he activated the exceptional powers provided for by the Constitution. These measures allowed him to order the allocation of strategic land and to expropriate certain areas without going through the usual procedures.

• With the text modified :

  • Article 63 gives the President exceptional powers to act unilaterally in the event of a serious threat.
  • This allows Oligui Nguema to speed up administrative procedures without parliamentary or local consultation.
  • Opponents or citizens affected by these decisions have no immediate recourse.

• With the original text :

  • The activation of exceptional powers required prior consultation with the Constitutional Court and the Presidents of the two chambers.
  • The measures taken would have been limited in scope and subject to institutional supervision.
  • Any action deemed disproportionate could have been challenged.

Key difference :
The amended text gives almost total autonomy to the Executive in times of emergency, eliminating the consultation or control stages provided for in the initial text.

Step 4: Reducing future challenges through Article 168

Scenario
After the installation of the base, some clauses of the agreement aroused criticism, particularly with regard to Gabonese sovereignty or the disproportionate economic advantages granted to the United States. To prevent any legal or institutional challenge, Oligui Nguema modified certain constitutional provisions, aligning the legal framework with the terms of the agreement.

• With the text modified :

  • Article 168, combined with Article 63, allows the Constitution to be revised during periods of exceptional powers.
  • The amendments needed to retroactively validate the agreement can be adopted quickly, without public debate.
  • This eliminates any risk of future challenge before the Constitutional Court.

• With the original text :

  • Constitutional revision was prohibited in the event of parliamentary dissolution.
  • Any attempt at change would have required a lengthy and transparent process, including public debate and broad consultation.

Key difference :
The amended text provides increased legal flexibility, allowing the Constitution to be adapted to the needs of the Executive.

Conclusion: A credible and strategic scenario

With the constitutional amendments, Brice Oligui Nguema can negotiate, ratify, and implement an agreement for the installation of a U.S. military base quickly and discreetly. These changes allow him to bypass institutional safeguards, neutralize checks and balances, and secure strategic support to prolong the transition. Under the original text, such projects would have been significantly slowed or hampered by more robust legal and institutional controls.