A journalist under constant political pressure 

Mohamed Boughaleb is neither the first nor the last to suffer reprisals from a government that has made the repression of critical voices a mode of governance. A journalist renowned for his independence of tone, his caustic humor and his uncompromising interventions, he has become one of the symbolic figures of media resistance to the authoritarian regime of Kaïs Saïed.

After being sentenced to eight months' imprisonment in 2024 following a complaint lodged by the Minister of Religious Affairs - a case fabricated on the basis of an unauthenticated screenshot - Mohamed Boughaleb served his sentence. But far from being acquitted or rehabilitated, he immediately became the target of a new judicial machination.

In this second case, still pending, he is accused of insulting a university professor on Facebook, via a post attributed to an account which, according to his lawyers, does not belong to him. No digital forensic examination was carried out, despite requests from the defense. No serious verification was made of the origin of the incriminating post. And yet, the proceedings were maintained and referred to a criminal chamber as if the facts in question constituted a serious offence against public order.

Mohamed Boughaleb is thus kept in a state of permanent vulnerability, exposed to a heavy sentence on the sole basis of unfounded presumptions - for having, in reality, persisted in exercising his profession with courage and sincerity.

This judicial pressure is compounded by physical exhaustion. Mohamed Boughaleb suffers from a number of chronic conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure and prostate problems. His eyesight and hearing have deteriorated, and he suffers from persistent pain and nervous fatigue. Although at liberty, he continues to suffer the after-effects of an inhumane detention and the lack of adequate care he was confronted with. This aspect makes the continuation of the proceedings against him all the more unacceptable: this is judicial harassment made all the more cruel by the fact that it is being carried out on a weakened man, targeted for his ideas.

Decree-law 2022-54: a systematic instrument of repression

This judicial harassment is based on article 24 of the decree-law n°2022-54 on cybercrime adopted in September 2022. Behind its vague and alarmist wording - the fight against "false news", "rumors", "defamatory statements" - this text constitutes a formidable weapon against freedom of expression.

Since its promulgation, this decree-law has been used to arbitrarily prosecute dozens of journalists, lawyers, academics, bloggers, activists and opponents. It provides neither clear criteria of numerical responsibility, nor mechanisms for contradictory expertise. It reverses the burden of proof, criminalizes opinion and allows those in power to choose their targets.

In the case of Mohamed Boughaleb, this decree is being used to maintain pressure, prolong legal uncertainty and dissuade any attempt at public criticism. The threat of up to 10 years in prison for unauthenticated content posted on an account he denies owning, illustrates the degree of arbitrariness reached.

Instrumental justice and flawed procedure

The investigation of the Boughaleb case reveals a political use of justice. The examining magistrate, who refused to accept any technical expertise, was promoted, without competition or transparency, to the post of public prosecutor in Zaghouan by a simple memo in the context of the illegal freezing of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary.

The criminal chamber in charge of the case, presided over by Salah Fatnassi, is known for handling other politically sensitive cases - notably those of the opponent Abir Moussi - and for mechanically carrying out the instructions of those in power. At the hearing on April 18, 2025, the court did not seem to be moved by the lack of serious evidence or the clear violations of the rights of the defense. The case was postponed until May for the plaintiff's hearing.

Procedure itself becomes a tool of punitio, where the trial is no longer the place of law but the instrument of a strategy of exhaustion.

The CRLDHT demands that the Tunisian authorities

• Put an immediate end to the current legal proceedings against Mohamed Boughaleb, which have been flawed from the outset, based on unauthenticated evidence and marred by serious violations of the most fundamental procedural guarantees.
• Publicly rehabilitate Mohamed Boughaleb and guarantee his unrestricted freedom to work as a journalist, without fear of reprisals.
• Repeal decree-law no. 2022-54, or alternatively suspend its application in all cases relating to the expression of opinion, pending reform in line with international human rights standards.
• Re-establish an independent, pluralist and elected Conseil supérieur de la magistrature, the only body empowered to appoint, transfer or sanction magistrates, in accordance with the principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary.

The CRLDHT calls on civil society, journalists' unions and professional organizations to

• Strengthen actions in solidarity with Mohamed Boughaleb through public forums, mobilization campaigns, citizen observatories of the trials and visible symbolic actions in the public space.
• Form a common front against the instrumentalization of Decree-Law 54 by building a unified coalition for its repeal.
• Invite professional organizations (bar associations, trade unions, magistrates' associations and journalists) to refuse to endorse politicized legal proceedings that openly violate the right to a fair trial.

The CRLDHT calls on international partners, diplomatic missions and UN and African mechanisms to

• Include Mohamed Boughaleb's situation in all bilateral and multilateral communications with the Tunisian authorities, including within the European Union, the UN and the African Union.

• Make any institutional or sectoral cooperation with Tunisia conditional on effective compliance with international commitments, particularly with regard to freedom of expression and the independence of the judiciary.
• Mobilize international protection mechanisms, in particular through urgent interventions by special rapporteurs, the filing of collective complaints with the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, or the inclusion of the case in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) procedures.