A Tunisian court has issued prison sentences ranging from 13 to 66 years to dozens of individuals, including high-profile opposition leaders, lawyers, and business figures, for alleged offences against national security.
The sweeping verdicts, which have drawn sharp criticism from human rights groups and legal experts, mark one of the most extensive political trials in Tunisia’s recent history.
According to local media reports and statements by defence lawyer Abdessatar Messaoudi on Saturday, around 40 defendants were convicted on charges of “conspiracy against state security” and “belonging to a terrorist group.”
The sentences were handed down by a special anti-terrorism court, with the harshest punishment—66 years in prison—imposed on businessman Kamel Eltaief.
Among those convicted were several prominent opposition figures, many of whom are affiliated with the National Salvation Front coalition. Issam Chebbi and Jawhar Ben Mbarek, alongside lawyer Ridha Belhaj and activist Chaima Issa, were each sentenced to 18 years in prison.
Activist Khayam Turki received a 48-year sentence, while Eltaief, a well-known businessman and political figure, was given the maximum sentence.
Some of the convicted have already spent nearly two years in detention, while others remain at large or in exile.
The verdicts have provoked widespread condemnation, with critics accusing the Tunisian judiciary of acting under political pressure from President Kais Saied’s administration.
Saied has ruled by decree since July 2021 after a dramatic power grab that saw him dissolve parliament, dismiss the government, and assume full executive authority—a move widely seen as undermining Tunisia’s democratic institutions.
A human rights advocate and former minister who was tried in absentia, Kamel Jendoubi, strongly criticised the court’s ruling, calling it a “judicial assassination.”
“This is not a judiciary ruling, but a political decree executed by judges under orders, by complicit prosecutors and by a justice minister,” Jendoubi said, accusing them of serving “a paranoid autocrat.”
The trial process itself has been denounced by defence lawyers as fundamentally flawed and lacking due process. On Friday evening, the court concluded proceedings without hearing from either the prosecution or the defence, prompting outrage among legal representatives.
“There were flagrant violations of judicial procedure,” said lawyer Samia Abbou, speaking to AFP. “The accused [were] not heard,” she added, describing the proceedings as a “masquerade.”
The hearing, which lasted most of the day, was closed to media and foreign diplomats—both of whom had been permitted access to earlier stages of the trial. The court’s decision to exclude observers further fuelled concerns over transparency and judicial independence.
Since the trial began on March 4, defence lawyers have consistently demanded that all defendants be brought before the court, including at least six individuals who are currently on hunger strike. They have maintained that the case is baseless and politically motivated.
Human Rights Watch also weighed in, asserting that the trial is unfolding in a broader environment of repression. The organisation accused President Saied of “weaponising the judicial system to target opponents and dissidents.”
Political analyst Hatem Natfi, commenting on X (formerly Twitter), noted that the outcome of the trial was politically significant. “Any acquittal in the mass trial would have negated the conspiratorial narrative that the regime has relied on since 2021,” he wrote, adding that the storyline had been “accepted by a large part of the population” due in part to restricted media coverage.
As international scrutiny of Tunisia’s political trajectory intensifies, the latest court rulings are likely to further raise alarms about the erosion of civil liberties and the future of democracy in the country that gave birth to the Arab Spring.
