Chad's 20-year prison sentence for Succès Masra reveals how African courts have become weaponised against dissent. Across the continent, writes Michael Asiedu, authoritarian regimes are using fabricated charges to silence opponents. This, he says, masks repression behind democratic facades, erodes judicial independence, and weakens the prospects for democratic transition
On 9 August 2025, Chad's criminal court sentenced former Prime Minister Succès Masra to 20 years in prison. The charges — spreading xenophobic content, criminal conspiracy, and incitement to violence — stem from deadly clashes that killed 42 people in the country's Logone Occidental province. Yet the verdict represents far more than judicial overreach. It exemplifies how African autocrats systematically exploit courts to eliminate opposition while maintaining legal legitimacy.
Masra's trajectory captures Chad's contested democratic transition. Leading the opposition party Les Transformateurs, he returned from exile in 2024 following the internationally brokered Kinshasa Agreements designed to facilitate civilian governance. His appointment as transitional prime minister (January–May 2024) offered the promise of reconciliation between the military-led government and opposition forces.
But Masra's resignation on the eve of Chad's presidential election revealed deeper fractures. When Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno — son of the former president killed in combat in 2021 — won with 61.3% of the vote against Masra's 18.5%, Masra contested the results, alleging systematic fraud. He transformed into a vocal regime critic, denouncing 'rigged electoralism' and claiming the system was mere window dressing for an apartheid-style regime.
When Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno won the presidential election in May 2024, opposition candidate Succès Masra contested the results, alleging systematic fraud and urging mass boycotts of legislative elections
Masra's provocative language invited parallels with the ethnic and regional exclusion in Chad's power structures. He urged mass boycotts of legislative elections, rejecting the entire transitional framework in which he had previously participated as prime minister. This shift from insider to confrontational outsider made Masra a primary target for the administration's consolidation efforts.
The case emerged from intercommunal violence between herders and farmers in May 2025. When clashes in Mandakao killed at least 42 people, authorities alleged Masra's social media posts had incited hatred and violence. This led to Masra's detention at his N'Djamena home on 16 May.
The mass trial included Masra and 74 co-defendants, with prosecutors initially seeking a 25-year sentence for Masra. While at least nine defendants were acquitted, the remainder received identical 20-year sentences plus fines of one billion CFA francs (approximately $1.8 million). This uniformity raised serious questions about individual justice, suggesting courts had prioritised political messaging over careful legal analysis.
Defence lawyers alleged the case was built on empty files and assumptions, denouncing the instrumentalisation of justice to settle political scores. Masra dismissed charges as a 'political setup', which violated the agreements that facilitated his return.
Chad's approach reflects a continental trend. Benin sentenced opposition figure Reckya Madougou to 20 years on terrorism charges that observers deemed politically motivated. DR Congo’s Vital Kamerhe faced corruption charges targeting his presidential ambitions. Tanzania's Tundu Lissu survived assassination attempts and faced repeated arrests. Cameroon's Maurice Kamto faced treason charges after challenging Paul Biya's 2018 victory. Uganda's Bobi Wine faces continuous legal harassment designed to neutralise his political influence.
Across the continent of Africa, cases of judicial persecution share characteristcs: serious criminal allegations, expedited trials, and convictions based on questionable evidence
These cases share characteristics: serious criminal allegations, expedited trials, and convictions based on questionable evidence. The systematic nature suggests coordinated strategies to weaponise legal systems — a sophisticated adaptation to international scrutiny where legal proceedings face less criticism than crude repression.
Human Rights Watch judged Masra's sentence evidence of 'Chad's use of courts to silence political dissent'. But manipulation runs deeper than executive pressure. Threats of reduced career prospects, security concerns, and institutional pressures are all eroding judicial independence.
The assembly-line approach — dozens of identical sentences — reveals courts functioning as administrative extensions of executive power rather than independent bodies. It normalises political prosecution, creating precedents that make future manipulation easier. When political convenience rather than evidence determines outcomes, the entire legal framework loses credibility. Citizens increasingly view courts as mere regime instruments, enabling further executive overreach.
This erosion fundamentally transforms the rule of law into rule by law. Legal procedures serve political control, not constitutional protection. The long-term consequences extend beyond individual cases to undermine the entire foundation of democratic governance, as legal institutions lose the legitimacy necessary to constrain authoritarian impulses.
When regimes violate agreements without consequences, this throws regional bodies like the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), which facilitated Masra's return, into crises of credibility. The African Union's peer review mechanisms lack binding authority. Western democracies tend to prioritise stability over governance, maintaining relationships with regimes that weaponise courts. This permissive environment makes judicial persecution rational from a regime survival perspective. Without credible consequences for undermining judicial independence, such behaviour becomes cost-effective, creating cycles where weak responses embolden authoritarian adaptation.
Systematic targeting through judicial methods creates effects that cascade beyond individual prosecutions. High-profile cases send clear messages about the cost of opposition. Lengthy judicial proceedings act as strong deterrents. The process becomes punishment regardless of verdicts, with pre-trial detention and public humiliation serving regime interests.
High-profile cases send clear messages about the cost of opposition. The message for young people is that political participation outside approved channels threatens their futures
Democratic competition thus transforms from legitimate activity into high-risk endeavour. The message for young people is that political participation outside approved channels threatens their futures; it fundamentally alters civic engagement approaches and creates self-censorship that extends beyond formal constraints.
Contemporary African autocrats are remarkably adaptable, exploiting the institutions designed to constrain them. This 'lawfare' maintains democratic legitimacy's appearance while eliminating competition. When persecution turns into prosecution, the judicial process itself becomes punishment, allowing leaders to claim rule-of-law adherence while undermining its substance. The democracy of elections and civil liberties proves insufficient when legal systems have become authoritarian tools.
The Masra case warns us that evolving authoritarian tactics require sophisticated responses. Judicial manipulation is eliminating opposition across Africa — from Benin to Uganda, Tanzania to Cameroon. Understanding these patterns is vital to protect democratic space and restore judicial credibility, as courts turn from guardians of justice into weapons against dissent, threatening democracy’s very foundation.
