Tunisia’s Court of Cassation has upheld lengthy prison sentences against dozens of opposition figures and activists accused of conspiring against President Kais Saied, bringing to a close a three-year legal process that has become a major point of contention over the independence of the country’s judiciary.
The court rejected the final appeals in the case on Thursday, leaving sentences of as much as 45 years in place for some of the 40 defendants. Those convicted include opposition party leaders, lawyers, businessmen and human rights defenders, while about half of the defendants had already fled Tunisia and were tried and sentenced in absentia.
The verdict has intensified criticism from opponents of Saied, who argue that the judiciary has been subjected to political pressure and that the prosecution of prominent government critics forms part of a broader crackdown on dissent.
Among those whose convictions were upheld was National Salvation Front leader Najib Chebbi, who received a 12-year prison sentence. Opposition figures Ghazi Chaouachi, Issam Chebbi, Jawhar Ben Mbarek and Ridha Belhaj each received 20-year terms, while politician Noureddine Bhiri was sentenced to 10 years.
The defendants have been accused of involvement in a conspiracy aimed at destabilising the country and overthrowing Saied. The government has maintained that the proceedings concern serious threats to national stability rather than political disagreement.
Opposition figures and lawyers, however, have strongly rejected that characterisation and have described the case as politically motivated.
Haifa Chebbi, a lawyer and daughter of Najib Chebbi, said the court’s decision demonstrated what she regarded as the lack of judicial independence in Tunisia.
“The ruling confirms that the judiciary is not independent,” she said, arguing that her father and the other defendants had been targeted through a case intended to silence opposition voices.
According to Haifa Chebbi, the defendants entered prison as a result of a political decision and would only be released when Saied was no longer in power.
The criticism was also directed at the handling of the final appeal. Defence lawyers said they were informed on Monday that the hearing would take place on Thursday, leaving them with limited time to prepare their arguments.
Dalila Msaddek, whose brother Jawhar Ben Mbarek is among those convicted, also reacted to the ruling. In a Facebook post, she said the conclusion of the judicial process marked the beginning of a different kind of struggle.
“The legal battle is now over … what begins is a purely political battle,” she wrote.
The case has become closely associated with wider concerns over Tunisia’s democratic trajectory since Saied came to power. Saied was elected president in 2019, but his subsequent concentration of power has generated sustained criticism from opposition groups and activists.
Critics point particularly to the President’s decision to dissolve the independent Supreme Judicial Council and dismiss dozens of judges. Saied has also governed largely by decree, developments that opponents say have weakened institutional checks on executive power.
The mass trial is consequently viewed by critics as an important illustration of what they describe as Tunisia’s democratic backsliding.
The political context surrounding the convictions has made the case particularly significant. Opposition figures have argued that the prosecution of their colleagues cannot be separated from the wider changes that have taken place under Saied’s rule.
The government, however, has rejected allegations that the defendants were prosecuted because of their political views. Authorities have maintained that the accused were involved in activities intended to destabilise the country.
Tunisia’s justice minister has said the defendants sought to undermine the country’s stability, reinforcing the government’s position that the case involved matters of national security rather than legitimate political opposition.
Saied himself has taken an uncompromising position towards those arrested in connection with the case. Following their arrests in 2023, he described the accused as “traitors and terrorists”.
The President also warned that judges who acquitted the defendants would be treated as accomplices, a statement that has become central to criticism of the judiciary’s independence.
For opponents of the government, such remarks illustrate the pressure under which judicial institutions operate. They argue that judges must be able to make decisions independently, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving opposition leaders and prominent critics of the government.
The government’s position remains that the defendants should be held accountable for alleged efforts to destabilise the country and that the judicial process is addressing those allegations through the courts.
Thursday’s ruling means the defendants have exhausted the final appeal available to them in the case. For those sentenced in absentia, the proceedings have also resulted in lengthy prison terms despite their absence from the country.
The scale of the sentences has drawn particular attention. With some defendants facing decades in prison and the maximum sentence reaching 45 years, opposition groups have portrayed the ruling as a severe escalation in the treatment of political dissent.
The prosecution has unfolded over roughly three years, beginning with arrests in 2023 and culminating in the Court of Cassation’s decision. During that period, the case has remained one of the most closely watched legal battles involving Tunisia’s opposition.
The involvement of such a wide range of defendants has also contributed to its significance. The group includes politicians, lawyers, business figures and human rights defenders, reflecting the broad reach of the proceedings.
For the opposition, the convictions represent more than individual prison sentences. They argue that the outcome has implications for the wider political system and the ability of government critics to operate freely.
Haifa Chebbi’s description of the case as an effort to silence opponents reflects that broader concern. Her assertion that those convicted will remain imprisoned until Saied leaves power frames the verdict as part of an ongoing political confrontation rather than the conclusion of a conventional criminal case.
The government, meanwhile, continues to reject claims of political persecution and insists that the accusations against the defendants concern threats to Tunisia’s stability.
The disagreement over the case therefore extends beyond the question of individual guilt. At its centre is a much larger dispute over the independence of Tunisia’s institutions, the limits of presidential authority and the space available for political opposition.
The Court of Cassation’s decision has now closed the judicial chapter of the case, but it is unlikely to end the political controversy surrounding it.
For Saied’s opponents, the verdict reinforces their argument that Tunisia’s democratic institutions have been weakened since his election and subsequent concentration of power. For the government, the convictions demonstrate that individuals accused of attempting to destabilise the state must face legal consequences regardless of their political status.
As a result, Thursday’s ruling leaves Tunisia’s opposition facing lengthy prison sentences while deepening the debate over whether the country’s courts can operate independently in politically sensitive cases.
Tunisia’s Top Court Upholds Long Prison Terms for Opposition Figures in Mass Trial
