Tunisia is going through a period in which the justice system is increasingly being called upon to settle political scores. Proceedings targeting opponents, journalists, lawyers, activists, and leaders of civil society or business organizations cannot be examined in isolation, case by case, without considering the broader context in which they occur. The sheer number of such cases, the severity of certain sentences, the use of specialized or military courts, and violations of the right to a fair trial point to a troubling trend: the use of the judicial system as a tool to silence critical voices.

The architect of this system is Kaïs Saïed. Justice Minister Leïla Jaffel is its institutional face. It is founded on arbitrariness: broad charges, contested proceedings, prolonged detentions, and sentences that can crush a person even before the facts have been examined in a fair and independent trial. Its goal is the neutralization, followed by the political and social destruction, of any opposition, whatever its form and wherever it comes from: political opposition, civil society, the business community, the media, the judiciary, the bar, or the digital sphere.

This is not to say that every prosecution brought against a public figure is political, nor that every person facing prosecution is innocent. Corruption, threats to national security, and terrorist offenses must be prosecuted. But the fight against these offenses loses all legitimacy when judicial safeguards disappear, when criticism becomes evidence of guilt, or when professional duties—reporting, verifying, defending, investigating—are equated with criminal acts without concrete evidence.

October: A Sign of a Drift

The cases examined or monitored in October, along with updates known as of early November, reveal a judicial system that is increasingly cracking down on critical voices. Political leaders and activists are being prosecuted or convicted for speaking out; journalists are being targeted in cases related to their work and the protection of their sources; and civilians are appearing before military courts. In cases involving terrorism as well as corruption, the seriousness of the charges never relieves the prosecution of the obligation to produce specific evidence and to guarantee the rights of the defense.

This trend also affects peaceful protests, human rights defenders, transitional justice actors, and the business community. Prolonged detentions, extremely harsh sentences, repeated postponements, restrictions on contact with families, and multiple legal proceedings create a climate in which punishment precedes the adversarial determination of responsibility. These situations, though differing in their facts and legal characterizations, all fuel the same concern: the manipulation of the justice system to intimidate, isolate, and sideline opponents and adversaries of the government.

The fight against terrorism and corruption cannot justify arbitrary actions, unfair trials, or the use of military courts against civilians for their opinions. The presumption of innocence, the independence of the courts, and an individualized examination of the facts must be guaranteed. (The dates, sentences, charges, and procedural steps for each case are presented below in the section “Trials and Major Legal Cases in Tunisia—October 2026.”)

The same pattern: isolate, intimidate, silence

These cases involve different individuals and different charges. The fact that they are linked does not, in and of itself, prove the existence of a single plan. But their recurrence—against a backdrop of police repression, restrictions on media coverage, and pressure on judicial officials—calls for a look beyond each individual case.

Police repression of protests and the criminalization of free speech reinforce one another: people on the streets are deterred from speaking out, and then legal proceedings serve as a reminder to everyone of the potential cost of speaking out. Journalists see their sources threatened; lawyers and human rights defenders face prosecution or obstruction; civil society organizations are weakened; business leaders find themselves under pressure from criminal cases; and political opponents are isolated through incarceration, convictions, or successive legal proceedings.

Added to this is disinformation and the spread of narratives that blur the line between political criticism, investigative journalism, and threats against the state. When any dissent is portrayed as treason, a conspiracy, or complicity with terrorism, society is encouraged to distrust its own voices. Public debate disappears; fear and suspicion take the place of discussion.

The muzzling of the media and the erosion of judicial independence are not separate issues. Together, they transform the relationship between the state and society. Instead of being safeguarded by impartial institutions, dissent becomes a power struggle with the government. Instead of protecting freedoms and upholding the law, the judiciary risks becoming an extension of political will. This perception erodes trust in institutions and threatens social cohesion.

Security does not justify arbitrary action

Tunisia is bound by legal instruments that protect the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, the right to information, freedom of association, and participation in public life. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantees, in particular, the presumption of innocence, the right to a defense, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial tribunal. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also enshrines the right to a fair hearing before a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, as well as the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.

The fight against terrorism or corruption never exempts the authorities from respecting these safeguards. On the contrary, it requires rigorous investigations, individualized evidence, clearly formulated charges, and adversarial proceedings. Criminal liability is personal. Sentences must be proportionate to the established facts. Military courts must not become the standard venue for trying civilians on the basis of their opinions. Journalists must be able to carry out their work without being forced to reveal their sources. Detained individuals must be able to prepare their defense and maintain their dignity.

The trials and proceedings observed in October are not isolated incidents to be ignored one after another. They serve as a warning. When the justice system becomes a tool for intimidation and settling scores against opponents and adversaries of those in power, when the press is prevented from reporting the news, and when dissent is treated as a threat, the very bond between the state and society begins to unravel. Judicial arbitrariness is running rampant: it must be stopped through respect for the law, civic mobilization, and the defense—without exception—of fundamental freedoms.

Trials and Major Legal Cases in Tunisia — October 2026

Elyes Chaouachi: Over 100 Years in Prison—A Persecution That Has Reached the Point of Absurdity

On October 27, 2026, Elyes Chaouachi was again sentenced in absentia to six months in prison, to be served immediately, in a case related to content posted online. Then, on November 7, the Indictment Division specializing in terrorism cases decided to refer him to the anti-terrorism criminal court for a new case involving posts and videos attributed to him. This is a referral for trial, not a new conviction; nevertheless, this decision continues a deeply alarming series of legal proceedings.

We condemn in the strongest possible terms the legal proceedings brought against Elyes Chaouachi and the unjust, scandalous, and utterly absurd verdicts that have been piled against him. This young activist, who was 29 years old when the first charges were filed against him in 2023 and is now in his thirties, faces a cumulative sentence that now exceeds 100 years in prison.

Since the arrest of his father, lawyer and political opponent Ghazi Chaouachi, Elyes has been speaking out on social media to denounce the conditions of his detention, political trials, and attacks on the independence of the judiciary. In response, legal proceedings against him have multiplied in connection with his posts, videos, and public statements. Some of these cases have been brought under anti-terrorism legislation or Decree-Law 54.

More than 100 years in prison for a young man whose public statements and political activism are at the heart of numerous cases: this accumulation of charges is outrageous. It reveals a justice system that has strayed from its mission and a crackdown aimed at intimidating, wearing down, and silencing him. Anti-terrorism legislation must not be used to criminalize political criticism, and defending an imprisoned father cannot become a reason for persecution.

We condemn these unjust, disproportionate, and scandalous prosecutions and verdicts. We express our full solidarity with and support for Elyes Chaouachi. We call for an end to the prosecutions related to the expression of his opinions, a review of the convictions handed down against him, and effective respect for his rights, particularly his right to a fair trial and to a defense.

Defending one's father, speaking out against injustices, and criticizing the authorities cannot justify such judicial persecution.

OLFA HAMDI: SENTENCED TO FOUR YEARS IN PRISON BY A MILITARY COURT

On October 21, the Permanent Military Court of Tunis sentenced Olfa Hamdi, former head of Tunisair and president of the Third Republic Party, to four years in prison without parole and a fine of 80,000 dinars. According to her attorney, this sentence results from two separate two-year convictions, each accompanied by a fine of 40,000 dinars. She is already serving another two-year sentence handed down in March 2026.

The charges of conspiracy against state security and inciting military personnel to disobey orders are reportedly based on social media posts attributed to her. For a civilian to be convicted by a military court for remarks related to her political expression is a particularly serious abuse of power. The military justice system should not be used to try political leaders or to intimidate those who criticize the government.

The proliferation of convictions and the accumulation of sentences—without a clear explanation of how they are linked—illustrate the arbitrary nature of this proceeding. The charges, the evidence admitted, and the safeguards afforded to Olfa Hamdi must be made public. The use of a military court to try a civilian seriously undermines the right to a fair trial. We call for her immediate release so that she may appear as a free person in any ongoing proceedings, with full respect for her rights and the guarantees of a fair trial.

"Leaked Recordings" Case: Zied El-Heni Sentenced to Four Years

On October 27, the criminal division of the Tunis Court of First Instance specializing in terrorism cases sentenced journalist Zied El-Heni to four years in prison, to be served immediately. Mondher Ounissi, a former Ennahda leader, was sentenced to nine years in the same case.

The charges include, among other things, failure to report information related to a terrorist act and alleged contacts with agents of a foreign state. The allegations against Zied El-Heni are reportedly linked to his request to verify the authenticity of audio recordings and his refusal to hand over his phone without a warrant, in order to protect his sources. He appeared via video link from Mornaguia Prison and was unable to attend his lawyers’ closing arguments. The International Federation of Journalists and the National Union of Tunisian Journalists have condemned this conviction.

Zied El-Heni: A New Land Dispute Case and Continued Detention

Another case involves journalist Zied El-Heni, former Minister of Culture Ezzedine Bach Chaouch, former municipal official Mohamed Ali Hammami, and other former officials of the Carthage municipality. The case concerns the sale of municipal land at a price that the public prosecutor’s office considers to be below its actual value. The complaint, filed in December 2022 by an association dedicated to protecting Carthage’s heritage, alleges that the sale caused financial harm to the municipality and was concluded without a prior appraisal by the State Property Office. The charges include, among other things, the alleged abuse of a public office to obtain an undue advantage, causing harm to the administration, and participation in these acts.

The defense argues that the disputed actions were part of an administrative effort to regularize a long-standing situation and that the municipal decisions had been approved by the supervising authority. The case reportedly dates back to municipal deliberations that began as early as 1967. These facts will need to be examined at trial: the charges do not constitute proof of guilt.

On November 6, the court adjourned the case until December 16. It ordered the release of two other defendants, but Zied El-Heni remains in custody. This land dispute case is separate from the case involving the leaked recordings, in which he was sentenced on October 27 to four years in prison.

The continued detention of Zied El-Heni—even though the land dispute case has not yet been heard and the court has released two other defendants—calls for a specific justification. We demand his immediate release and that he be allowed to appear as a free man in these proceedings. The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial require that pretrial detention not become either a rule or a form of premature punishment.

“Conspiracy Against State Security 2”: Appeals Dismissed by the Court of Cassation

On October 21, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeals against the convictions handed down on appeal in the so-called “Conspiracy 2” case. The sentences, ranging from 3 to 35 years in prison, have thus become final. This decision brings to a close the appeals in a case involving some 20 individuals, including several political opponents, whose due process rights were challenged by human rights organizations.

Rached Ghannouchi and Kamel Bdioui were sentenced to 20 years in prison, while Fathi Beldi and Samir Hannachi were sentenced to 15 years. Several defendants tried in absentia received sentences of 35 years. The confirmation of such harsh sentences in a case with strong political implications reinforces concerns about the manipulation of the justice system and the silencing of dissenting voices.

Rached Ghannouchi, 85, suffers from Parkinson’s disease, and his health is a cause for concern. His defense team and family have reported several hospitalizations, episodes of loss of consciousness, and restrictions on their visits, as well as on his lawyers’ access to him during his stay in the hospital.

The release of all political prisoners and an end to judicial harassment—particularly that targeting Rached Ghannouchi—are essential. He must also be granted immediate access to appropriate medical care and be allowed to communicate with his family and lawyers.

Passport and Citizenship Case: Harsh Sentences, Facts Yet to Be Established

On October 26, the criminal chamber specializing in terrorism cases at the Tunis Court of Appeals adjourned the hearing of the case until November 16. At the trial on May 5, former Justice Minister Noureddine Bhiri and former security official Fathi Beldi were each sentenced to 20 years in prison. Mouadh Ghannouchi and three others tried in absentia were sentenced to 30 years; two defendants who appeared in court were sentenced to 11 years. The fate of Hamadi Jebali and two others remains pending the review of their appeal against their referral to the criminal chamber.

The charges relate to the forgery or use of passports and citizenship documents, as well as the alleged facilitation of individuals’ departure from Tunisian territory with the intent to commit terrorist acts. However, the seriousness of these charges does not exempt the prosecution from demonstrating precisely the acts attributed to each individual. Official documents cited in the available evidence indicate that citizenship certificates for Youssef Nada and Ali Ghaleb Himmat date back to 1983, well before Bhiri or Jebali held government positions. The prosecution also cites subsequent actions taken in 2012 and 2013. It is therefore up to the court to clearly establish which documents were issued or used, on what date, by whom, and with what intent.

Imposing very harsh sentences on those responsible without clearly establishing each individual’s responsibility or resolving the contradictions in the timeline raises serious concerns. The right to a fair trial requires that the defense have access to all evidence, examine it, and effectively challenge it, and that the defendants’ arguments be heard with the same attention as those of the prosecution. Respect for human rights requires the presumption of innocence and a rigorous examination of the facts. In the absence of evidence establishing the individual criminal responsibility of the defendants, they must be acquitted.

Mohamed Nasser Chouikha: Two Years in Prison for a Political Article

On October 27, Mohamed Nasser Chouikha, a member of the Hizb Ettahrir party, appeared before the Tunis Military Court of First Instance. Detained since February 2025, he was prosecuted following an article published in Al-Tahrir that criticized U.S. participation in military exercises held in Tunisia and denounced U.S. support for Israel in the war in Gaza. His lawyers argued the case for nearly two hours. The next day, the court sentenced him to two years in prison and a fine.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is an international Islamist movement founded in 1953 that advocates for the establishment of a caliphate. Its Tunisian branch received legal authorization in 2012, under the government of Hamadi Jebali. This decision remains highly controversial: the party’s bylaws, practices, and positions are in clear contradiction with the requirements of the law governing political parties and with republican principles. The party was barred from holding its general assembly, but after the July 2021 coup, it was able to hold it and resume its activities.

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s positions cannot justify Mohamed Nasser Chouikha being tried by a military court and imprisoned for a political article. The use of military justice against a civilian seriously undermines freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. We must demand her immediate release, a review of her conviction, and an end to military prosecutions of civilians for their writings and opinions.

Rachid Othmani and Souheil Chebbi: Six-Month Suspended Sentence Following a Protest March

On October 20, the Criminal Division of the Tunis Court of First Instance sentenced activists Rachid Othmani and Souheil Chebbi to six months’ suspended prison terms. They had been arrested after participating, on September 19, in a march in support of the detained members of the Soumoud flotilla. They were released following the verdict.

Their protest expressed solidarity with those who had attempted to break Gaza’s isolation and denounce the violence suffered by the Palestinian people. The courage of these activists deserves to be commended: despite the risk of prosecution and intimidation, they chose to demonstrate peacefully and publicly defend their belief that solidarity with the Palestinian people should not be criminalized.

This conviction, however, sends a deterrent message to all those who wish to demonstrate peacefully, express their opinions, or take part in an act of solidarity. The use of legal proceedings can thus instill fear and restrict the exercise of fundamental freedoms. The suspended sentence does not alleviate the pressure felt by those prosecuted nor the intimidating effect of the proceedings. The cases of the other individuals arrested following this protest also remain to be monitored.

Sihem Ben Sedrine and Khaled Krichi: Case Related to an IVD Decision

The proceedings concern the arbitration and reconciliation agreement reached by the Truth and Dignity Commission (IVD) with businessman Lazhar Sta, who died in prison on September 8, 2026. Sihem Ben Sedrine, former president of the Commission, is appearing in court as a free woman. Khaled Krichi, a former member of the IVD and head of its arbitration and reconciliation commission, remains in custody.

After several postponements, they appeared on October 22 before the criminal chamber specializing in financial corruption cases at the Tunis Court of First Instance. No decision on the merits of the case was reported following this hearing. This proceeding is in addition to other prosecutions related to the work of the IVD, in which Sihem Ben Sedrine and Khaled Krichi were sentenced in the first instance, in June 2026, to 25 and 10 years in prison, respectively.

Criminal prosecution of officials for decisions made in the course of their legal duties is intended to discredit the transitional justice process. It risks turning the work of truth-seeking, reparations, and reconciliation into a source of further prosecutions, and intimidating those who have contributed to it. Khaled Krichi’s prolonged detention, while the proceedings continue, reinforces these concerns.

All legal proceedings against Sihem Ben Sedrine, Khaled Krichi, and former IVD officials for decisions made in the course of their duties must cease immediately. The criminalization of transitional justice work undermines the rights of those being prosecuted and the search for the truth. Khaled Krichi must be released without delay, and the guarantees of a fair trial must be fully respected for both him and Sihem Ben Sedrine.

Ayachi Hammami: A Political Detention That Must End

His sister reports that the books she brings to Ayachi Hammami still have not been given to him and that his letters are also taking a long time to reach him. Depriving him of reading material, mail, and easy visits reinforces his isolation and worsens his conditions of detention.

On September 24, 2026, while he was on a hunger strike in solidarity with other inmates, Ayachi Hammami was transferred from Mornaguia Prison to Monastir Prison, about 170 kilometers from his home. His family condemns this punitive measure, which separates him from his loved ones.

A lawyer and human rights defender, he was arrested on December 2, 2025, to serve a five-year prison sentence in the so-called “conspiracy against state security” case. He had initially defended several individuals charged in that case before becoming a defendant himself. Sentenced to eight years in the trial court, his sentence was reduced to five years on appeal; the Court of Cassation upheld this conviction on September 3, 2026. He went on a 43-day hunger strike to protest his detention and the restrictions imposed on his contact with his lawyer.

Ayachi Hammami’s legal case reveals a serious abuse of the system: a lawyer committed to defending human rights, who initially represented those facing prosecution, has himself been convicted in the same case. His conviction and continued detention, his separation from his family, and the reported restrictions in prison raise serious concerns about the use of the justice system and respect for the rights of the defense.

The plea written on his behalf by Liam Lemoine, winner of the Caen Memorial Contest, attests to the attention his case has drawn beyond Tunisia. Ayachi Hammami must be released immediately. His conviction must be reviewed, and the restrictions on his contact with his family, his lawyers, his books, and his mail must cease.

Abir Moussi: A visit authorized by a judge, but denied, according to her defense team

On October 28, the defense teamfor Abir Moussi—who has been detained since October 3, 2023—denounced the prison administration’s refusal to implement the October 20 court order allowing her daughter to visit her in person. The prison administration reportedly cited the prisoner’s classification in a category related to terrorism and threats to state security. The defense disputes this justification and points out that in-person visits had been authorized previously. Preventing a child from seeing her mother despite a court order seriously undermines their family ties and the child’s rights.

This detention is part of a series of convictions handed down in three cases. In the so-called “presidential registry office” case—in which she was arrested while attempting to file an appeal against presidential decrees related to the electoral process—the Court of Appeals sentenced her on March 13, 2026, to ten years in prison, plus an additional six months for obstructing the freedom of labor. In two cases brought by the Independent High Authority for Elections, she received sentences of two years and six months. The combined sentence totals twelve years and six months in prison. On September 29, the Court of Cassation rejected her defense’s appeals, making these convictions final.

The severity of these sentences—which stem primarily from her actions and statements regarding the electoral process—as well as the series of prosecutions against an opposition figure who has been detained for more than three years, raise serious concerns about the use of the justice system to sideline her from political life. The denial of a visit authorized by a judge adds to this situation by constituting an unjustifiable violation of her family’s rights.

Abir Moussi must be released so she can be reunited with her family.

Riadh Ben Fadhel: Sentenced to 20 Years in the Case of Confiscated Property

On October 30, the criminal division of the Tunis Court of First Instance specializing in financial corruption cases sentenced Riadh Ben Fadhel, general coordinator of the Al-Qotb party, to 20 years in prison. Eighteen other defendants were each sentenced to nine years.

The case concerns the acquisition of assets confiscated after Ben Ali’s fall and allegations of money laundering and financial corruption. The defense asserts that these assets were acquired through proper competitive bidding processes. The charges alone are not sufficient to establish guilt: the facts, the evidence, and the liability of each defendant must be proven.

Riadh Ben Fadhel, who has been in custody since November 2023, had his requests for release denied—including on October 12—before being sentenced to a particularly harsh prison term. His prolonged detention, followed by a 20-year sentence, raises serious questions about the proportionality of the sentence, the presumption of innocence, and the individualized review of his case. His previous conviction in a customs and financial case, which was overturned on appeal in April 2025, is part of a separate proceeding.

The prolonged detention, the refusal to grant release, and the severity of the sentence are evidence of a justice system that punishes before publicly and rigorously establishing each individual’s responsibility. This case illustrates judicial arbitrariness. We must demand the immediate release of Riadh Ben Fadhel and a review of his conviction in accordance with the guarantees of a fair trial.

The Syphax-Agil Case: Harsh Sentences and Responsibilities Yet to Be Clarified

On October 23, the criminal division specializing in financial corruption cases at the Tunis Court of Appeals upheld the convictions handed down in the lower court. Mohamed Frikha, a businessman, founder of Syphax Airlines, and former member of the Ennahdha parliamentary group, was sentenced to seven years in prison. Abdelkrim Harouni, a former Minister of Transportation and Ennahdha leader, had his two-year sentence upheld. Moncef Matoussi, former chairman and CEO of the National Petroleum Distribution Company (SNDP-Agil), and Habib Mlawah, former deputy CEO of this state-owned enterprise, were each sentenced to six years. Fines were also upheld, though the amounts were not specified in the available court records.

The case concerns the supply of jet fuel to Syphax Airlines by SNDP-Agil, known by its trade name Agil. The prosecution alleges that the defendants engaged in transactions that allegedly provided an undue advantage to the airline and caused harm to the public enterprise. The charges are based in particular on Article 96 of the Penal Code, which addresses the alleged exploitation of a public office to obtain an undue advantage or to harm the government. Syphax has denied the allegations of illegal benefits and stated that it has repaid part of its debts, with the balance having been rescheduled.

The length of Abdelkrim Harouni’s detention makes this case particularly troubling: after more than three years in prison, he was released on the very day the Court of Appeals upheld his two-year sentence, which he had already served. This discrepancy illustrates the sometimes irreversible consequences of prolonged pretrial detention.

The justice system must establish individual accountability and protect public funds. But it must also examine the entire decision-making chain: How were the deliveries authorized, monitored, and carried out despite reports of unpaid bills? Who, within the institutions involved, was responsible for overseeing these operations? By targeting the defendants without fully clarifying the charges against each one or the full scope of institutional responsibilities, the proceedings confirm the reality of selective justice.

Respect for human rights requires evidence that is accessible and subject to cross-examination, established accountability for each individual, and proportionate penalties. It also requires that pretrial detention remain an exception and never become a form of punishment prior to trial.

Maher Chaâbane and Amel Limam: The Berges du Lac 2 Impound Lot Case

On October 10, 2026, the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Tunis Court of First Instance sentenced Maher Chaâbane, a businessman active primarily in real estate and public works, and Amel Limam, the former mayor of La Goulette, to five years in prison each. Elected mayor in July 2018 as a member of Nidaa Tounes, Amel Limam had been in custody since June 2024 in connection with this case. The court records reviewed do not specify whether the sentences have since been reviewed on appeal.

The case specifically concerns the municipal impound lot at Berges du Lac 2, operated by a company linked to Maher Chaâbane. The investigation focused on the conditions under which this public service was awarded and managed, as well as on possible administrative concessions that favored private interests. The reported charges involve allegations of favoritism, abuse of office, administrative and financial irregularities, and the falsification of official documents. Without the written judgment, it remains difficult to specify which acts were cited against each of the convicted individuals.

The length of Amel Limam’s pretrial detention, as well as the severity of the sentences, make it essential to publish the detailed grounds for the judgment: the charges against each individual, the evidence considered, and the calculation of the fines. The fight against corruption does not exempt the justice system from respecting the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defense, and the requirement that criminal liability be established on an individual basis.

Case Involving Chafik Jarraya, Imed Trabelsi, and Lotfi Abdelnadhir

On October 26, the Criminal Chamber of the Tunis Court of First Instance adjourned the hearing of the case until November 19, pending the outcome of an appeal to the Court of Cassation regarding the decision to refer the case to the trial court. The three men are being prosecuted on suspicion of financial and administrative corruption, influence peddling, and embezzlement of public funds. Lotfi Abdelnadhir is being prosecuted as a fugitive. The charges in this case have yet to be heard by the court.

The three defendants have already been convicted in other cases, separate from the one under consideration here.

Chafik Jarraya has been convicted in several separate cases, some of which were overturned on appeal or after review by the Court of Cassation. These convictions relate, in particular, to contracts involving confiscated property, a building constructed near the Tunis-Carthage airport, forgery, and tax and financial offenses. In 2026, he was also sentenced in the first instance to 15 years in the so-called “provision of a foreign army” case; the hearing on his appeal, scheduled for November 5, was postponed to November 16. The sentences handed down in the cases involving confiscated assets have undergone significant changes—notably, a cumulative sentence reduced to four years in May 2025, followed by a 16-year sentence in four cases after appeals to the Court of Cassation and subsequent remands. These decisions should therefore not be presented as a total of cumulative sentences without examining the judgments and how they relate to one another.

Imed Trabelsi, a businessman and nephew of Leïla Ben Ali, was sentenced in April 2025 to ten years in prison in three cases involving the embezzlement of public funds and administrative and financial irregularities. Another sentence— eight years in prison and a fine of three million dinars—related to obtaining undue benefits at the expense of the government. In May 2026, he was sentenced to five years in prison in a case involving financial and customs offenses.

Lotfi Abdelnadhir, a businessman, was sentenced in September 2024 to six years in prison in a financial corruption case that also involved Belhassen Trabelsi.

The controversial reputation of the three defendants and the other cases or convictions involving them should not deprive them of their rights in this case. Each offense must be proven separately, and each defendant’s liability must be established individually. The Tunisian Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to a trial within a reasonable time; these guarantees are consistent with Tunisia’s international treaty obligations, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Bassem Loukil and the Businessmen Caught Up in the Legal Maelstrom

On October 14, 2026, following his interrogation, the investigating judge of the Economic and Financial Crimes Division issued a committal order against Bassem Loukil, chairman of the Loukil Group and former representative of Citroën in Tunisia. This measure was taken during the preliminary investigation and does not constitute a conviction.

The reported allegations concern the alleged formation of a conspiracy to launder money, the alleged abuse of office by a public official to obtain an undue advantage, harm caused to the government, and violations of foreign exchange regulations.

This case is part of a broader climate of pressure on the business community. The government presents “criminal reconciliation” as a means of recovering funds allegedly embezzled from the state. The legal framework provides that the payment of sums or the completion of projects may serve as an alternative to prosecution and sentencing. But when detention accompanies opaque financial negotiations or exorbitant sums, the so-called reconciliation takes the form of judicial and economic coercion.

Several examples unrelated to criminal reconciliation illustrate this trend. Ahmed Abdelkefi, founder of Tunisie Valeurs, was detained as part of the investigation into the management of the Caisse des dépôts et consignations, then released in November 2025 after posting bail of 25 million dinars. Abdelaziz Makhloufi, a businessman and former president of the Sfax Sports Club, was released on bail of 50 million dinars in the Henchir Chaâl case.

Hatem Chaâbouni, who is facing charges in a bank loan case, paid 60 million dinars to be released in June 2026. A few months later, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined 26 million dinars. Marouane Mabrouk was ordered to post bail of one billion dinars, which was later reduced to 800 million. He was not released and was convicted in several cases. Such sums are not mere guarantees: they turn freedom into a privilege accessible only to defendants capable of paying exorbitant amounts. This mechanism fuels accusations that the justice system uses detention as a means of financial pressure.

In this context, we can speak of a “ransom policy” to denounce a system in which the state uses the fight against corruption and the recovery of public funds as a pretext to impose payments under the threat of imprisonment. The fight against corruption must not be used to subjugate those subject to judicial proceedings or to make their freedom contingent on their wealth: liability must be established on the basis of evidence, through a transparent, adversarial, and fair process.

Mehdi Ben Gharbia, Youssef Chahed, and Soufiane Bouhachem: A Political Case Heard by the Anti-Terrorism Chamber

On October 30, 2026, the Fifth Criminal Chamber specializing in terrorism cases at the Tunis Court of First Instance postponed until December 22 the hearing of the case involving Mehdi Ben Gharbia, a former minister and businessman; Youssef Chahed, a former head of government; and Soufiane Bouhachem, an executive of one of Ben Gharbia’s companies. Bouhachem is appearing in court while in custody; Chahed is being tried in absentia, while Ben Gharbia remains in custody. The trial, which began in December 2025, has already been postponed several times.

The investigation reportedly began with an anonymous tip alleging a conversation between Ben Gharbia and another inmate. According to information provided by his lawyer and subsequently reported in the press, the tip-off referred to money transfers from abroad to opposition figures, an attempt to influence the December 2023 local elections, and pressure on businessmen to dissuade them from participating in criminal reconciliation. These statements remain mere allegations: the available reports do not identify any material evidence to support the specific acts attributed to each of the three defendants.

The severity of the “terrorism” charge contrasts with the political and financial nature of the facts described publicly. No acts of violence are detailed in the reports reviewed. In the absence of a precise explanation of the evidence justifying the use of anti-terrorism legislation, this charge risks turning suspicions of political financing and disagreements over a government measure into a matter of national security. Furthermore, the successive postponements prolong the legal uncertainty, while Ben Gharbia remains in custody despite already facing charges in other cases.

Proceedings of this gravity require the presentation of specific facts and evidence, effective access by the defense to the case file, and an adversarial examination of witness testimony. Continued detention must not become a form of preemptive punishment. The presumption of innocence, the rights of the defense, and the right to a fair trial must be fully guaranteed.

Ridha Charfeddine and Mohamed Salah Ben Ammar: Hearing Postponed to November 26

On October 29, 2026, the criminal division of the Tunis Court of First Instance specializing in financial corruption cases postponed until November 26 the hearing of the case involving Ridha Charfeddine, a businessman and former member of parliament; former Minister of Health Mohamed Salah Ben Ammar; and other defendants. The postponement is intended to allow time for the outcome of the appeal filed with the Court of Cassation against the decision that ordered the defendants to be referred to this chamber. The merits of the case have therefore not yet been adjudicated.

According to information attributed to the defense, the investigation reportedly began following an anonymous complaint; the case was then closed before being reopened in November 2023. Transferred to the Economic and Financial Crimes Unit, the investigations subsequently branched out into several separate proceedings involving allegations of corruption, money laundering, illicit enrichment, and banking or customs violations. This succession of separate proceedings and the appeal against the decision to refer the case make it all the more necessary. The secrecy of the investigation prevents publication.

The convictions already handed down against Ridha Charfeddine relate to separate cases:

• In a case involving the accumulation of assets abroad without authorization from the Central Bank, Ridha Charfeddine was sentenced to three years in prison and fined approximately 72 million dinars. This sentence was upheld on appeal in November 2025.
• On March 12, 2026, he was sentenced to eleven years in prison in a money laundering case linked, in particular, to customs violations. In the same case, his brother Lotfi Charfeddine was sentenced to seven years, and Ahmed Belli, former president of a sports association, to ten years. The defendants and the companies involved were also fined more than 11 million dinars.
• On May 8, 2026, Ridha Charfeddine was sentenced to two years in prison in a third case involving customs and banking offenses.

These sentences stem from separate proceedings, and their combination does not constitute a single conviction in the case scheduled for November 26. The proliferation of prosecutions and severe sentences does not relieve the court of its obligation to establish separately the facts alleged against each defendant. It must not treat the accumulation of cases as a presumption of guilt. The justice system cannot simply string together prosecutions and convictions: it must allow the defense access to all the evidence, enable it to effectively challenge the charges, and provide it with the same resources as the prosecution. Without these safeguards, neither the presumption of innocence nor the right to a fair trial can be effectively upheld.

Ghazi Karoui and Omar Ouelbani: A Public Procurement Case with Significant Political Implications

The hearing scheduled for October 22, 2026, was postponed to November 9. On that date, the specialized criminal chamber of the Financial and Economic Division of the Tunis Court of First Instance again adjourned the case until December 7, pending expert reports ordered by the court. Ghazi Karoui, a businessman and former member of parliament, is being tried in absentia, as he is reported to have fled the country; Omar Ouelbani, former director general of examinations at the Ministry of Education, is appearing in court as a free man.

The case concerns a contract signed in 2012 between the Ministry of Education and the company Karoui & Karoui for the installation of advertising billboards in schools. The charges relate to allegations of corruption, embezzlement of public funds, alleged abuse of a public official’s position to obtain an undue advantage, and causing harm to the government. First publicly reported in 2017, the case was referred to the criminal division in 2022. After years of legal proceedings, the available information still does not specify either the amount of the alleged loss or the specific charges against each defendant. The charges remain to be established at trial.

The family and political context of this case is also worth noting. Nabil Karoui, Ghazi’s brother, is a businessman and a major player in the media: as co-founder of the Karoui & Karoui Group, he founded Nessma TV. His career has long been associated with close ties to those in power. Under Ben Ali, permission to launch Nessma was granted in the context of allegiance to the ousted president; Nabil Karoui had publicly referred to him as his “father.” After the revolution, his image remained tainted by this closeness, and later by allegations of tax fraud and money laundering set forth in a complaint filed in 2016. These allegations led to legal proceedings and, in 2026, to a conviction in absentia; however, they should not be automatically applied to the separate case involving the advertising contract.

A member of Nidaa Tounes in 2012, Nabil Karoui was one of Béji Caïd Essebsi’s influential supporters before leaving the party in 2017 and founding Qalb Tounes. He also drew on the charitable activities of the Khalil Tounes association, which received extensive coverage on Nessma TV. The European Union’s election observation mission noted that, even without an established financial link between the association and his campaign, the media coverage of these activities during the election period may have bolstered his image among voters. As a candidate in the 2019 presidential election and Kaïs Saïed’s opponent in the second round, he received 1,042,894 votes, or 27.29% of the votes cast.

On February 26, 2026, Ghazi and Nabil Karoui were sentenced in absentia, in a separate case, to fourteen years in prison each, with immediate enforcement, to fines totaling more than 37 million dinars, and to the forfeiture of bank accounts, stocks, and real estate. This separate case involved charges of money laundering, falsification of accounting documents for the purpose of tax evasion, and the transfer of assets intended to evade tax debts. It does not resolve the issue of the school contract.

This trajectory—past ties to Ben Ali, media influence, electoral competition against Kaïs Saïed, and serious legal proceedings targeting the two brothers—gives the case a political dimension that it would be artificial to ignore. It does not prove that the charges in the current case are unfounded; however, it makes transparency regarding the evidence and individual responsibilities all the more essential. In a context where the government is also prosecuting figures who have challenged its authority, the mounting number of legal proceedings fuels fears that the justice system is being exploited to neutralize its opponents. Repeated delays and the lack of public clarification regarding the alleged wrongdoing reinforce these concerns.

Slim Ben Hamidane: Convicted in a Case in Which the Government Nevertheless Claims Victory

On November 5, 2026, the Court of Appeals reportedly upheld the in absentia conviction of Slim Ben Hamidane, former Minister of State Property and Land Affairs, to six years in prison in the Franco-Tunisian Bank case. The sentence had been handed down in May 2025 by the criminal chamber specializing in financial corruption cases at the Tunis Court of First Instance. The article reporting this decision is based on a statement from the former minister; the written judgment and the specific charges against him are not presented.

This case highlights a contradiction that the government must explain. The dispute with ABCI Investments, which has been ongoing since the 1980s, led to international arbitration. The company was seeking approximately 37 billion dinars; in 2023, the arbitral tribunal rejected most of its claims and set compensation at approximately 1.106 million dinars, according to the Tunisian Ministry of State Property. The authorities then presented this outcome as a victory for public finances. However, in the same case, a former minister who claims to have helped defend the state’s interests has had his six-year prison sentence upheld.

This conviction cannot be deemed unjustified without a review of the judgment. But neither can the State simply invoke the fight against corruption. It is the State’s responsibility to clearly explain what specific acts Ben Hamidane is accused of, what evidence supports these allegations, and how they relate to decisions made by public institutions over the course of several decades. In the absence of these explanations, the decision fuels doubts about a justice system that appears to be holding a former official responsible for an old case, even as the government touts the favorable outcome achieved on the international stage.

A distinction must be made between the arbitration—which concerned the State’s liability and claims for compensation—and the criminal proceedings, which concern individual liability. However, this distinction does not exempt the authorities from accounting for their decisions or from ensuring a fair trial. A financial victory for the government does not prove the innocence of a former minister; nor can a criminal conviction serve as an explanation for the acts and responsibilities that have actually been established.