The UEMOA Court of Justice, ruling publicly and contradictorily, in first and last instance, in matters of community law, on January 28, 2026, on the sanctions adopted or endorsed by the Conference of Heads of State and Government (CCEG) of the Union against Mali on January 9, 2022, declared the latter illegal and nullified them.
The decision rendered on January 28, 2026 by the UEMOA Court of Justice marks a major turning point in the legal and economic history of the Union. By annulling the economic and financial sanctions adopted in January 2022 against Mali by the Conference of Heads of State and Government (CCEG), the Court has established a fundamental principle: no measure producing economic effects can be taken without explicit community legal basis.
While this decision strengthens the rule of community law institutionally, the National Federation of Industries and Services of Côte d’Ivoire (FNISCI) urges the Ivorian private sector to take a realistic and forward-looking approach. Behind Mali’s institutional legal victory looms a new risk for economic actors in the Union: that of a “deferred and diffuse judicialization of the economic effects of now recognized illegal sanctions.”
A founding judgment for the rule of community law
Seized by the Republic of Mali, the UEMOA Court of Justice ruled that the CCEG had no legal competence to adopt or endorse economic and financial sanctions, even of a political nature. The judgment thus affirms the primacy of community law, subjects political decisions to judicial review, and recalls the autonomy of technical institutions, notably the BCEAO. By limiting the effects of the annulment to the date of the judgment, the Court sought to preserve the stability of the Union. However, this legal precaution does not extinguish all risks.
The perspective of Ivorian industrialists: a displaced, but not erased risk
In a confidential analysis note addressed to its member companies, FNISCI estimates that the judgment of the Court of Justice of the Union “shifts the center of gravity of regional risk from a political and institutional ex ante risk to a legal and contentious ex post risk. The judgment constitutes a legal interpretation element that may be invoked in contractual, banking, and commercial disputes.”
In other words, the sanctions have been lifted, but their past economic effects – contract breaches, payment freezes, logistical interruptions, execution defaults – remain. And these effects now constitute fertile ground for multiple disputes, which will often be private-to-private, sometimes indirectly directed against banks or financial institutions.
A precise mapping of risks for companies
Ivorian industrialists identify several categories of major risks in this regard. In particular, “legal and contractual risks” which they weigh as “high,” translated into actions for non-performance or abusive termination of cross-border contracts, challenges to force majeure based on sanctions deemed illegal, multiplication of disputes before national, OHADA, or arbitration courts. But also “banking and financial risks” which may result in challenges to account freezes or past payment suspensions, disputes related to the interruption of credit lines, increased provisioning for financial institutions. And finally, “commercial and logistical risks” related to the punctual disorganization of regional value chains, forced renegotiations of contracts, operational difficulties related to border closures and other supply chain disruptions.
A call for prevention rather than judicial confrontation
While satisfied that the Court’s judgment strengthens the institutional legal security of the Union while reassuring on the predictability of its economic environment, FNISCI highlights, in analyzing the typology of future disputes, “that companies are likely to be frequently at the forefront – despite being entirely unrelated to the political decisions of the CCEG, and that they will be collateral victims.”
Faced with this new landscape, Ivorian industrialists advocate for a proactive and collective response. FNISCI calls on the community private sector “to understand the prevention and amicable management of the legal effects of past illegal sanctions as a regional economic imperative.” In this logic, it recommends: “the systematic review of force majeure clauses in regional contracts, the priority use of mediation and arbitration to avoid a cascade of costly procedures; rigorous documentation of decisions made during the period of sanctions; enhanced dialogue between companies, banks, and supervisory authorities.” The pioneering professional organization of the Ivorian industrial sector goes further by calling for the establishment, under the auspices of community institutions, of a regional framework for the amicable management of the legal effects of illegal sanctions, in order to preserve market cohesion and investor confidence.
A structuring, but demanding case law
Mali’s legal victory represents a decisive progress for the rule of law in the UEMOA. But for the private sector, it opens a more complex phase, where legal security will now have to be actively constructed. As Ivorian industrialists summarize, the risk has not disappeared: it has transformed.
In an economic Union facing lasting political tensions and the institutional reconfiguration of the Sahel, this case law could become either a factor of economic stabilization or, failing anticipation, a trigger for chain disputes. It will depend on the ability of economic and institutional actors to control its effects.
