A justice system cannot be credible if it merely adds up sentences without guaranteeing rights

For nearly three years, Judge Béchir Akremi has been detained and prosecuted in a series of cases related to his former duties. Recent rulings have further worsened his situation: after his total sentence was increased to twenty-nine years on appeal on July 13, 2026, he was sentenced on September 22 to an additional fifteen years in a new case. This accumulation of charges cannot be examined independently of the gradual erosion of the guarantees of judicial independence in Tunisia.

Successive proceedings and severe penalties

Béchir Akremi, a former public prosecutor at the Tunis Court of First Instance who later served as chief investigating judge, has been in custody since February 12, 2023. The cases brought against him primarily concern the judicial handling of sensitive proceedings, particularly those related to the assassinations of Chokri Belaïd and Mohamed Brahmi.

On March 3, 2026, the Criminal Chamber specializing in terrorism at the Tunis Court of First Instance sentenced him in two cases to a total of twenty-three years in prison. On July 13, the Court of Appeals increased these sentences to twenty-nine years: twelve years in the first case and seventeen years in the second. The charges included, among other things, willful failure to execute an arrest warrant, concealment of the truth through the abuse of official authority, and forgery.

On September 22, 2026, the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the same court handed down a new sentence of fifteen years for forgery, possession, and use of forged documents. These proceedings relate to acts committed as part of the investigation into the assassination of Chokri Belaïd. This is a first-instance judgment, which may be subject to all appeals provided for by law.

These three cases are separate. Therefore, they must not be confused, nor should Béchir Akremi be portrayed as having been convicted of the assassination of Chokri Belaïd. The charges relate to procedural acts attributed to him in the handling of cases connected to that assassination. This distinction is grounded in the presumption of innocence, the principle of individual criminal responsibility, and the basic integrity of public debate.

A mechanism of pressure rather than calm justice

No office, including a judicial one, should shield its holder from potential prosecution when specific and substantiated facts warrant it. However, a judge’s criminal liability can be established only following independent, adversarial proceedings that respect the rights of the defense. It cannot be the result of a justice system made vulnerable to political pressure, nor can it be used to rewrite the conflicts and divisions of the past.

However, the Akremi case unfolds against a backdrop in which the institutional safeguards for judicial independence have been profoundly weakened since July 25, 2021: the dissolution of the elected High Council of the Judiciary, the dismissal of dozens of judges, the transfer and prosecution of judges, and a surge in politically motivated cases. In this context, the repeated indictments, harsher sentences, and prolonged detention cannot be viewed as mere isolated incidents.

Judicial harassment is not recognized solely by the severity of a sentence. It is evident in the creation of a vise-like grip: the proliferation of cases, the accumulation of charges, a succession of convictions, the erosion of the ability to effectively prepare a defense, and the entrenchment in public opinion of the image of a guilty person before all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. It is precisely this stranglehold that appears to be tightening around Béchir Akremi.

The truth about the murders requires an independent justice system

The assassinations of Chokri Belaïd and Mohamed Brahmi are major political crimes. The families, loved ones, and citizens have a right to the truth, to the determination of responsibility, and to an end to impunity. But this demand for the truth cannot justify circumventing the rules. A legal process that blurs lines of responsibility, confuses procedural actions with participation in crimes, or deprives the defense of necessary safeguards undermines—rather than strengthens—the search for the truth.

That is why it is essential to make a clear distinction between the acts attributed to Béchir Akremi in the course of his duties and any criminal liability for the murders themselves. The charges must be specified individually, the evidence must be presented and debated in an adversarial process, and the decisions must be supported by clear and accessible reasoning. The fight against impunity cannot come at the cost of abandoning the rule of law.

Above all, there is one contradiction that must be pointed out. The Tunisian judiciary, now under the control of Kaïs Saïed, has already ruled on the assassination of Chokri Belaïd: it handed down judgments in the first instance in 2024, followed by appellate rulings in October 2025. These decisions were based on the investigative file to which Béchir Akremi had contributed in the course of his duties. One cannot, on the one hand, base convictions in the case on this judicial work and, on the other hand, make its author the symbol of alleged complicity in the crime without establishing specific, materially proven personal facts. This contradiction reinforces the need to put an end to retaliatory prosecutions.

Tunisia's obligations cannot be ignored

In its Opinion No. 2 of 2025, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that the deprivation of liberty of Béchir Akremi was arbitrary. It called for his immediate release and the provision of effective redress. This opinion requires the Tunisian authorities to address the substance of the violations identified and to comply with their international obligations.

Tunisia is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. These instruments require an independent and impartial judiciary, respect for the rule of law, the right to a fair trial, the effective preparation of a defense, and the right to challenge court decisions.

Rejecting Retributive Justice

The situation involving Béchir Akremi is not limited to a single judge. It raises a fundamental question for all Tunisians: Which judge will be able to carry out his or her duties independently in the future if the exercise of judicial authority in a sensitive case can, years later, lead to an endless series of prosecutions within a judicial system under increasing political pressure?

We must demand the immediate release of Béchir Akremi, an end to the judicial persecution he is facing, effective respect for his rights to a defense and to appeal, and the implementation of the United Nations Working Group’s recommendation. We must also demand that any proceedings against a judge be conducted within the framework of independent institutions, based on credible and individualized evidence, and without political manipulation.

Justice is not a weapon intended to punish judges who have become undesirable. It can regain its dignity only by protecting the rights of everyone, including those whom those in power have decided to subject to public condemnation.