At 4.55 a.m., a time when consciences are slumbering and eyes are elsewhere, the official Tunis Afrique Presse (TAP) news agency published a sober, almost banal dispatch announcing what will undoubtedly go down as one of the darkest moments in recent Tunisian judicial history. A series of heavy sentences against some forty political opponents in the now infamous "affair of plotting against State security". There's nothing innocent about this hour: it marks the triumph of secrecy, shadow and concealment.

This nocturnal verdict, delivered like a bolt from the blue in deafening silence, completes a sham trial in which everything possible was done to erase the last traces of the rule of law. It's all there: a flawed investigation led by a now fugitive judge, absent or far-fetched evidence, anonymous witnesses with dubious judicial records and, above all, a twisted justice system under the iron grip of a desperate executive.

The remote trial, imposed by an illegal administrative decision and in violation of article 141 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prevented any direct confrontation between the defendants and their judges. Their faces were erased from the courtroom, their voices muffled, their lawyers deprived of the opportunity to effectively exercise their mission. Justice without defendants: that's the real plot.

This verdict is not the fruit of a fair judicial debate, but of a long process of institutionalized harassment. It comes after two years of unjustifiable preventive detention, in inhuman conditions denounced by all independent international bodies. It punishes political meetings, exchanges of ideas and peaceful opposition - all acts that Kaïs Saïed, president turned vigilante, set out to transform into crimes of state.

Locked hearing, gagged opponents, improvised procedures: the masquerade continues.

The third - and decisive - hearing, held on April 18, 2025, turned into an extremely serious judicial drama, combining procedural violations, denial of justice and political instrumentalization to such an extent that some observers see it as a historic turning point in the collapse of the rule of law in Tunisia.

The trial involves 40 Tunisian politicians, lawyers, activists, former ministers and civil society figures, accused without concrete evidence of conspiracy, undermining the internal and external security of the state, and membership of a terrorist organization.

The climate was particularly tense against a backdrop of increasing authoritarian drift by Kaïs Saïed's regime, which has destroyed all checks and balances, instrumentalized the justice system and criminalized the opposition.

Behind closed doors: justice under siege

Early in the morning, the courthouse was locked down by an exceptional security detail. Armed police officers cordoned off all entrances:

• Citizens were prevented from entering, including relatives of the detainees;
• Only one member of each defendant's family was allowed to attend the hearing, in an atmosphere of widespread suspicion;
• Several lawyers were subjected to identity checks and asked to show their national identity cards, and some were prevented from entering the room without valid justification.

In this context, only one journalist (from a local daily reputed to be close to the government) was allowed to cover the hearing. All other media, both national and foreign, as well as observers, were excluded. These obstacles were denounced as a serious breach of judicial transparency and the principle of open trial.

Harassment: the case of Sana Ben Achour

Law professor and feminist activist Sana Ben Achour, present at the court in solidarity with the families, was stopped by security forces who snatched her national identity card - an act of targeted intimidation against a figure critical of the regime.

Strong statements and legal denunciations

More than two hundred lawyers were present in support. Several speeches vigorously denounced the infringement of fundamental rights, the lack of judicial independence and the systematic use of exceptional procedures to restrict the rights of the accused.

The lawyers insisted on the illegitimacy of the court to continue examining the case when an appeal in cassation had been lodged against the decisions of the indictment chamber, rendering the proceedings legally suspended. Requests for recusal have been lodged against the president of the chamber, whose appointment is tainted by a conflict of interest.

The use of videoconferencing for the appearance of defendants was denounced, not as a security measure, but as a tool designed to conceal the truth. The trial was described as unfair, marked by the exclusion of the families, pressure on the defense and the sealing off of the courtroom. The defense has stressed that the procedure is designed to conceal the absence of evidence and neutralize any public defense.

Finally, the speakers reminded us that judging the innocent often means protecting the truly guilty. And that any injustice, however localized, represents a threat to justice as a whole.

Detention and remote appearance: a travesty of justice

The prisoners, who have been incarcerated for over two years, have once again been prevented from appearing in person. Videoconferencing, imposed in violation of article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite their opposition, has become the symbol of a dehumanized justice system.

The defense denounced the use of letters allegedly sent from prison to justify the defendants' voluntary absence. Some of the letters are incoherent: the letter attributed to Jawhar Ben Mbarek is supposed to have come from Mornaguia, whereas he is being held in Belli.

Letters sent by the prisoners to justify their refusal to appear at a distance were ignored, despite their lawyers' insistence that these letters be read by the president of the court.

Paradoxically, the Chamber also ignored requests from defendants living abroad to be heard by videoconference, in accordance with article 73 of the organic law on the fight against terrorism.

Outside, silence and fear - but also resistance

Despite the locked entrance, a silent demonstration was held outside. Portraits of detainees were displayed, including Judge Bachir Akremi, the anti-terrorist judge who is the target of the security apparatus' relentless attacks. No incidents were reported, but the tension was palpable.

International reactions: increasing pressure

• Amnesty International has denounced a justice system "under orders", an "unfair" trial and the systematic use of remote appearances in violation of international standards.
• Human Rights Watch, in its April 16, 2025 report, cites this case as emblematic of the repression of the opposition in Tunisia.

Session suspended then stopped: between illegality and refusal to comply

Faced with the accumulation of procedural requests, the judge was forced to adjourn the session to "examine the requests", confirming an impression of absolute arbitrariness and improvisation.

An illegitimate procedure: the Cour de cassation ignored

As soon as the session resumed, an astonishing fact marked this hearing. Against all logical expectations, the Chamber decided to strike out the names of the defendants who had lodged an appeal in cassation, while continuing to rule on the merits of the case. The chamber thus created a new procedure from scratch, which contradicts the very nature of the charges.

Three defendants, M.K Jendoubi, N Ben Ticha and R Chaïbi, had lodged an appeal in cassation against the decision of the indictment chamber. Under Tunisian law, this appeal automatically suspends the examination of the case by the trial court. (The judge) The chamber did not take this into account, thereby flouting a fundamental procedural principle - the legality of proceedings. In so doing, the court has arrogated to itself a jurisdiction that it does not hold, in defiance of the most elementary principles of justice.

The lawyers denounced this decision as a "summary legal execution". They then collectively left the courtroom, refusing to be accomplices in a parody of justice.

The defense thus questioned the legitimacy of the entire tribunal board, made up of the following magistrates: Lassâd Chamakhi (president), Moez El Gharbi, Ahmed Barhoumi, Fatma Boukattaya, Afef Betaïeb. The defense and experts have publicly denounced this composition, asserting in court that its decisions will be worthless and that this judicial masquerade will inevitably be corrected once legality is restored.

A parodic micro-trial

The president of the chamber, announcing the resumption of the session, proceeded to read the order closing the investigation, but after 30 seconds, he declared that the continuation of the trial was becoming impossible in the face of the challenges from the lawyers, who were asking for the hearing to be adjourned in order to begin the procedures for withdrawing their ministry.

And this despite the fact that the lawyers for two defendants present had demanded that their clients be heard. The president of the chamber nevertheless adjourned the session for deliberation - in yet another monumental violation of due process and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court thus decided to deliberate on the merits of the case without a full reading of the committal order, without hearing the defendants, without an indictment from the public prosecutor and, above all, without defending the case. This is simply unprecedented and irrational.

The chamber seemed to have an obligation of result: the device was ready, it now had to be adopted.

Heavy prison sentences

The dispatch published by TAP relays the statements of the first deputy public prosecutor at the anti-terrorist judicial center, who confirms that prison sentences ranging from 13 to 66 years have been handed down to the defendants in the so-called "plot against State security" case...

Conclusion: an illegal trial, power without checks and balances

The third hearing on April 18 exposed :

• A judiciary subject to the executive ;
• A court that refuses to recognize the authority of the Cour de cassation;
• A huis clos worthy of an authoritarian regime;
• Intimidation of lawyers, families and observers.
• Procedures outside the legal framework

This trial is not about establishing the truth. It aims to crush the opposition. What's more, it raises a crucial question: what kind of justice is possible in a state where the law becomes the tool of political vengeance?