In the Mauritanian political landscape, rigorous data constitutes the essential foundation for any effective parliamentary oversight. This is what Professor Ely Mustapha recalls in his recent contribution published on Cridem. The intellectual examined a recent intervention by a deputy during a session at the National Assembly dedicated to governance and the management of public affairs. While the elected official identified a crucial theme for the country's management, their demonstration was undermined by a factual error in the figures. According to the professor's analysis, the deputy made the unfortunate choice of an erroneous figure to support their argument, thereby discrediting a line of questioning that nevertheless addressed relevant substantive issues. This situation illustrates the risk inherent in political communication: when imprecise data is presented, it often becomes the focal point of controversy, relegating the initial issue raised to the background. For Professor Ely Mustapha, this episode underscores the imperative need for the people's representatives to rely on impeccable statistical foundations before embarking on public questioning. The incident highlights the fragility of legislative debate when the technical nature of files is not mastered. As the country goes through periods of intense debate on its governance, this affair reminds political actors that precision is the best ally of credibility. While the deputy's intention to challenge the executive remains legitimate in the eyes of the analyst, it is the form of their argumentation that is currently the subject of criticism, highlighting the shortcomings sometimes noted in the preparation of parliamentary files in Nouakchott.