A Tunisian court sentenced a 56-year-old man to a rare death sentence for defaming the president and destabilising state security by sending defamatory messages on Facebook. The ruling has left the country reeling, sparking renewed debate over free speech under this government.
The man, Saber Chouchane, is a day labourer with low literacy. He was detained last year after several social media posts denouncing President Kais Saied, his lawyer, Oussama Bouthalja, said. On Friday, the court in Nabeul handed down a death sentence, a ruling that has been described by human rights activists as unprecedented in recent history in the country.
Bouthalja, in his post‑verdict reaction, described the ruling as “shocking” and historical. He, however, disclosed that an appeal was lodged. The Tunisian League for Human Rights also confirmed the sentence, adding that such a sentence had not been handed down in the country in over three decades.
The Ministry of Justice has made no official statements on the case.
The family members of the convicted man asserted that they were appalled by the verdict. His brother, Jamal, during a telephone interview with Reuters, indicated that his family was already poor to start with and now had to contend with the additional burden of what they believe to be an injustice.
A first in Tunisia’s tightening political climate
While Tunisian judges are known to pronounce death verdicts from time to time, executions are no longer carried out since the early 1990s. The majority of sentences lately have been commuted or left unexecuted. The latest ruling is being viewed as very exceptional, especially because it pertains to social media speech, not violent crime.
The development is the latest in Tunisia’s political evolution since 2021, when President Saied dissolved parliament and started ruling by decree. Saied defended his move as a rescue measure to prevent the nation from being guided into a political standstill and corruption.
Rights groups and observers have warned time and again since then of escalating curbs on free speech and judicial autonomy. They contend that the apparatus of the state is being used increasingly to silence dissent, with activists, journalists, and opposition leaders being increasingly targeted.
Here, activists fear that imposing a death sentence for criticism on social media is a sharp escalation of the state’s attempts to shut down dissent. Social media has been the principal platform for free political debate in Tunisia, and many saw the sentence as an attempt to reduce the criticism of the president and his administration.
Tunisians themselves used social media to express outrage and disbelief following the ruling. Several of the posts characterised the punishment as disproportionate, speculating that it has the potential to be used as a chilling effect on ordinary citizens who use Facebook or other sites to vent frustrations.
Why the ruling matters beyond one case
The importance of this decision is less in its harshness than in what it means for Tunisia’s democracy. Tunisia, for years, was the lone nation that arose from the Arab Spring with a functioning democracy. The 2011 revolution brought an end to decades of autocracy and gave rise to freedoms that were a rare thing on the continent, especially in the area of free speech.
The ruling also comes as democratic institutions continue to be under threat. Opposition politicians, civic organisations, and even judges have been arrested on charges that many consider political since 2021. Some opposition leaders are already jailed, with the president frequently accusing his opponents of being traitors.
Human rights organisations believe that the implementation of such a sentence may put pressure on the nation’s relationship with them as well as with international donors, at a time when the economy is under strain.
In the meantime, the appeal process will decide whether the sentence is upheld or quashed. Traditionally, most death penalties in Tunisia have been commuted on appeal or simply not carried out at all. Nonetheless, that the State made such a ruling in the first place indicates something bigger in terms of reasserting State power over public discourse.
The activists appeal that if the ruling is not overturned, it would result in additional prosecutions of everyday citizens for their digital speech. Consequently, it would alter the political participation of Tunisians, both online and off, limiting the free debate that has become a characteristic of the country’s post‑revolution era.
The move has prompted widespread scepticism about whether Tunisia, which years before had been celebrated as a small success story of democratic advancement in North Africa, is reverting to the authoritarianism its people rose against over a decade and a half ago.