In today’s Tunisia, deprivation of liberty all too often tends to become a routine step in the proceedings, even before a court has ruled on the merits of the case. This pattern affects political opponents, journalists, and civil society and labor union activists. It also affects former public officials and business leaders, who are sometimes turned into convenient symbols of a so-called “war on corruption.”

The case of Afif Khfacha illustrates the serious abuses of a justice system that seems less concerned with establishing individual responsibility—based on specific and contradictory evidence—than with reinforcing a political narrative. At 72 years old, in poor health, and detained since November 2024, Afif Khfacha has been deprived of his liberty for nearly two years, even though the acts he is accused of date primarily from the period between 2000 and 2010 and his case raises major questions regarding law, procedure, and fairness.

An industry executive who is now in pretrial detention

Afif Khfacha, an engineer who graduated from the École Centrale de Paris, held leadership positions in Tunisian industry for several decades. In particular, he headed the Tunisian Automotive Industry Company (STIA) before being appointed to lead the El Kanaouet company in Enfidha. STIA, a corporation in which the government held a stake, was privatized in 2008–2009 and subsequently placed in liquidation in 2018.

Since November 2024, he has been detained in connection with proceedings related to his management of STIA. Concerns about his health have mounted: breathing difficulties, prostate problems, difficulty walking, and particularly harsh detention conditions. This situation calls for an immediate humanitarian response, regardless of the merits of the case.

The Charges: Extremely Serious Offenses

After a lengthy investigation, the investigating judge issued an order closing the case. The case was then reviewed by the Indictment Division of the Sousse Court of Appeals. Afif Khfacha was referred to the Criminal Division of the Sousse Court of First Instance on particularly serious charges:

• participation in a conspiracy to commit property damage, as defined in sections 131 and 132 of the Penal Code;
• the misappropriation or embezzlement of assets from a company in which the government holds an ownership interest, pursuant to Article 99;
• exploiting one’s position to obtain an undue advantage or to cause harm to the government, pursuant to Article 96;
• money laundering, pursuant to Articles 92 and 94 of Organic Law No. 2015-26 of August 7, 2015.

These charges are allegations: they constitute neither proof nor a conviction. More than ever, they should necessitate a rigorous, independent, thorough, and fair investigation, as well as a trial within a reasonable time. However, the defense raises serious concerns precisely about the manner in which the investigation was conducted and about the very basis of several of the charges.

Management actions reclassified as criminal offenses

The points raised by the defense concern decisions made in the course of managing STIA: compensation, bonuses, company housing, rent, company vehicles, and the exercise of employee rights.

The defense emphasizes, in particular, that:

• compensation components and bonuses had been discussed or decided by the company’s governing bodies; some bonuses were based on decisions made prior to Afif Khfacha’s appointment;
• A disputed pay increase would result from a labor court ruling issued on December 25, 2013, following an expert assessment, with the company having been duly notified of the proceedings;
• With regard to company housing, Afif Khfacha reportedly requested a judicial appraisal to determine the rent before entering into a lease agreement; the defense also cites the management powers that had been granted to him;
• With regard to performance-based bonuses, the defense challenges the application to STIA of the regime specific to institutions with majority public ownership and points out that STIA was a corporation subject to the Commercial Code;
• The purchase of a company car was reportedly financed by the insurance settlement paid after the accident that rendered the previous vehicle inoperable.

These factors must be assessed by the trial court. However, they demonstrate that it is essential to distinguish between a possible management irregularity, a civil or labor dispute, and an intentional criminal offense. Criminal law cannot be used to automatically criminalize every administrative decision or every dispute arising from the management of a business.

Statute of Limitations, Retroactivity, and the Right to a Fair Trial

The case raises another key issue: the length of judicial proceedings. A significant portion of the alleged facts date back more than fifteen years. The defense therefore argues that the statute of limitations has expired for several claims and points out that challenges to certain corporate decisions are subject to very short time limits under the Commercial Companies Code.

It also challenges the application of money laundering provisions to acts that occurred prior to the 2015 Organic Law. The principle of legality of offenses and penalties prohibits the retroactive application of a more severe criminal law. As for money laundering, the defense emphasizes that it presupposes the existence of assets derived from criminal activity and acts intended to conceal their origin—elements that it believes are absent from the case file.

Finally, characterizing management decisions made in the course of running a company as a “conspiracy” or a “criminal conspiracy” requires particularly strong justification. Such a serious characterization cannot be based on mere professional relationships, nor on the existence of decisions made collectively within a company.

The Paradox of STIA's Privatization

This case cannot be understood without considering the context of STIA’s privatization. The decision to privatize was not made by its CEO: it was the responsibility of the relevant authorities and shareholders, particularly the public banking institutions involved in the company’s capital structure and the transaction.

According to evidence submitted by the defense, Afif Khfacha allegedly took steps after the privatization to defend STIA’s interests, report irregularities, and secure the payment of debts. In particular, the defense cites significant outstanding payments owed by the company that benefited from the privatization and criticizes the liquidator appointed in 2018 for failing to pursue certain procedures or enforce decisions favorable to STIA.

These points are based on allegations that must be verified. But they raise a legitimate question: Why is the person who claims to have drawn attention to violations of the company’s interests now in custody, while the entire decision-making chain and financial operations related to the privatization do not seem to be receiving the same level of public scrutiny?

When the Fight Against Corruption Becomes a Selection Tool

The fight against corruption is a democratic necessity. It must target all officials, regardless of rank, political affiliation, or proximity to those in power. But it loses all credibility when it becomes selective, when it confuses managerial responsibility with criminality, or when it is used to indefinitely prolong pretrial detention.

A truly independent judiciary must neither protect the powerful nor predetermine who is guilty. It must establish the facts, respect the rights of the defense, examine all relevant documents, hear from all parties involved, and determine individual responsibility.

In the case of Afif Khfacha, the prolonged pretrial detention of a 72-year-old man whose health is a cause for concern must not become a form of premature punishment. Prison cannot make up for the shortcomings of an investigation, nor can it serve as an answer to complex issues of governance, privatization, and corporate liquidation.

The CRLDHT :

• expresses its solidarity with Afif Khfacha and his family in light of the length of his detention and the reported deterioration of his health;
• calls for his immediate release on bail, with any necessary safeguards, so that he may receive the required medical care and prepare his defense under dignified conditions;
• requires that his trial be held within a reasonable time, in public, before an independent court, based on specific evidence and subject to cross-examination;
• requests that the court give serious consideration to the objections raised by the defense, particularly those relating to the statute of limitations, the non-retroactivity of criminal law, jurisdictional authority, and the characterization of the elements of the offenses;
• recalls that management decisions, labor disputes, and civil or commercial disputes cannot be equated with crimes without rigorous proof of fraudulent intent and established harm;
• calls for a comprehensive, impartial, and transparent investigation into the entire privatization process, STIA’s debts, banking transactions, the responsibilities of the shareholders, the decisions made during the liquidation, and the enforcement of judgments rendered in favor of the company;
• reaffirms that the fight against corruption can only be credible if it is independent of political authority, non-selective, and respectful of the presumption of innocence and fundamental freedoms.