Tunisia sentences ex-President Marzouki to 22 years in absentia
A Tunisian court on Friday handed down a 22-year prison sentence in absentia to former President Moncef Marzouki, a fierce critic of President Kais Saied, on charges of undermining state security, raising the opposition's fears of an escalating crackdown against critics.
Marzouki, who was president from 2011 to 2014, accuses Saied of establishing an authoritarian regime after dismissing parliament and ruling by decree since he seized almost all powers in 2011.
Saied defends his actions as necessary steps to stabilize Tunisia.
This is the third ruling against Marzouki, after a court ruled last year to imprison him for eight years and four years before that in various other cases.
Commenting on the ruling, Marzouki said from his exile in Paris: 'I say to these judges: your rulings are invalid, and you are invalid ... you will be tried soon.'
'Democracy will return,' he added.
Earlier on Friday, another court sentenced Sahbi Atig, a senior official in Ennahda, the country's main opposition party, to 15 years in prison on charges of money laundering, his lawyer said.
The 15-year sentence was shorter than some sentences handed down recently. In April, a court sentenced a string of opposition leaders, businessmen and lawyers to prison terms of up to 66 years, on conspiracy charges.
Most of the leaders of political parties in Tunisia are in prison, including Abir Moussi, leader of the Free Constitutional Party, and Rached Ghannouchi, the head of Ennahda - two of Saied's most prominent opponents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
44 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump's sweeping tax-cut, spending bill clears first US Senate hurdle
The Republican-controlled US Senate narrowly advanced President Donald Trump's, sweeping tax-cut and spending bill on Saturday, during a marathon weekend session marked by political drama, division and lengthy delays as Democrats sought to slow the legislation's path to passage. Lawmakers voted 51-49 to open debate on the 940-page megabill, with two of Trump's fellow Republicans joining Democrats to oppose the legislation that would fund the president's top immigration, border, tax-cut and military priorities. Trump on social media hailed the 'great victory' for his 'great, big, beautiful bill.' After hours of delay, during which Republican leaders and Vice President JD Vance worked behind closed doors to persuade last-minute holdouts to support the measure, Democrats demanded that the megabill first be read aloud in the chamber - a task that could delay the start of the debate until Sunday afternoon. Democrats say the bill's tax cuts would disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of social programs for lower-income Americans. 'Senate Republicans are scrambling to pass a radical bill, released to the public in the dead of night, praying the American people don't realize what's in it,' Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor. 'Democrats are going to force this chamber to read it from start to finish,' he said. Once the bill has been read, lawmakers will begin up to 20 hours of debate on the legislation. That will be followed by a marathon amendment session, known as a 'vote-a-rama,' before the Senate votes on passage. Lawmakers said they hoped to complete work on the bill on Monday. Republican Senators Thom Tillis and Rand Paul voted against opening debate, a move that seemed for a time to be in danger of failing. Trump attacked Tillis, who opposed the bill's cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for lower-income Americans, which he said would be devastating for his native North Carolina. Tillis is up for reelection next year. 'Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against 'Senator Thom' Tillis. I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks,' the president posted. Paul opposed the legislation because it would raise the federal borrowing limit on the $36.2 trillion US debt by an additional $5 trillion. 'Did Rand Paul Vote 'NO' again tonight? What's wrong with this guy???' Trump said on social media. In limbo Saturday's vote was in limbo for hours as Vance, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and other top Republicans sought to persuade last-minute holdouts to support the legislation. It was not clear what deals if any were struck to win over their support. Hardline Republican Senators Rick Scott, Mike Lee and Cynthia Lummis, who want deeper cuts in federal spending, voted to support the bill in the end. Another hardliner, Senator Ron Johnson, initially voted no but flipped his vote and backed the legislation. Trump was monitoring the vote from the Oval Office late into the night, a senior White House official said. The megabill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative achievement during his first term as president, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. The nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee released an analysis projecting that the Senate bill's tax provisions would reduce government revenue by $4.5 trillion over the next decade, increasing the $36.2-trillion US government debt. The White House said this month the legislation would reduce the annual deficit by $1.4 trillion. The world's richest person, Elon Musk, also took a swipe at the bill, which would end tax breaks for the electric vehicles that his automaker Tesla manufactures. Calling the bill 'utterly insane and destructive,' he risked reigniting a feud with Trump that raged earlier this month, before Musk backed down from his rhetoric. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Musk wrote in a post on his social media platform X. Medicaid changes Republicans from states with large rural populations have opposed a reduction in state tax revenue for Medicaid providers, including rural hospitals. The newly released legislation would delay that reduction and would include $25 billion to support rural Medicaid providers from 2028 to 2032. The legislation would raise the cap on federal deductions for state and local taxes to $40,000 with an annual 1% inflation adjustment through 2029, after which it would fall back to the current $10,000. The bill would also phase the cap down for those earning more than $500,000 a year. That is a major concern of House Republicans from coastal states, including New York, New Jersey and California, who play an important role in keeping the party's narrow House majority. Republicans are using a legislative maneuver to bypass the Senate's 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber. Democrats will focus their firepower with amendments aimed at reversing Republican spending cuts to programs that provide government-backed healthcare to the elderly, poor and disabled, as well as food aid to low-income families. The bill also would raise the Treasury Department's debt ceiling by trillions of dollars to stave off a potentially disastrous default on the nation's debt in the coming months. If the Senate passes the bill, it will then return to the House of Representatives for final passage before Trump can sign it into law. The House passed its version of the bill last month.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump says ‘not going to stand' for continued prosecution of Netanyahu
President Donald Trump said Saturday the United States was 'not going to stand' for the continued prosecution of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on corruption charges. 'The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel. We are not going to stand for this,' Trump said on his Truth Social platform.
Arab News
13 hours ago
- Arab News
Sacrificing tomorrow's survival in favor of today's foreign exchange
Countries in the Mediterranean appear trapped in a calculated, self-inflicted crisis. Those on southern shores systematically drain finite-capacity aquifers to cultivate luxury exports for foreign consumers, while simultaneously surrendering their food security to volatile global grain markets. This is not environmental misfortune but an engineered outcome of decades of policy choices prioritizing export revenues and external interests over national water resilience and domestic sustenance. The sheer magnitude of this engineered dependency defies sustainability. Consider Egypt, for instance, which is already categorized as a water-scarce country. It holds the dubious distinction of being the planet's single largest importer of wheat, spending billions in precious foreign currency simply to secure the basic flour it needs for its state-subsidized bread, a cornerstone of social stability consumed by millions daily. Yet, simultaneously, Egypt ranks among the world's Top 12 exporters of citrus fruits, potatoes, strawberries, and cotton. Each of these crops demands a staggering amount of irrigation in an environment where every drop of water is contested. Exporting a single tonne of strawberries or a bale of Egyptian cotton effectively ships thousands of precious cubic meters of the nation's dwindling water reserves, primarily to European supermarkets. What emerges is a financial calculus that reveals a profound distortion; the collective annual revenue generated by these 'high-value' agricultural exports falls drastically short of covering the colossal, ever-increasing bill for imported wheat. This gap is further widened by population growth and the immense fiscal burden of bread-subsidy programs, which are essential, yet unsustainable, props for fragile social contracts. It is a pattern replicated across other parts of the Mediterranean's southern shores. Morocco, for instance, in the midst of persistent droughts severe enough to mandate water rationing in urban areas, paradoxically functions as a mega-exporter of water-thirsty tomatoes, citrus, melons, berries, and avocados. Its primary trading partner for this exchange is Europe, eerily perpetuating an extractive dynamic disguised as free trade. Meanwhile, lucrative profits flow to private exporters and satisfy European consumer demand for off-season luxury produce, but the true cost is borne by depleted aquifers and communities facing shrinking water quotas. Similarly, Jordan, drawing down the shared Al-Dissi aquifer that is under the strain of scarcity, channels high-quality groundwater into growing peaches and nectarines, again for export. A common trend begins to emerge in which water-thirsty goods are prioritized over achieving relative domestic food sovereignty. Israel has even managed to take things a step further. Jerusalem not only leverages its prowess and contested control over land and water resources to dominate high-value fruit exports to supportive European markets. Capitalizing on an ongoing 'avocado boom,' while exerting near total control over the food supplies of subjugated neighboring territories, it essentially weaponizes sustenance and robs surviving Gazans of the ability to achieve food and water security on their own terms. So why do states persist in these self-destructive exchanges, given the region's acute water distress amid the worsening effects of climate change? It is a slow-bleed crisis in which the most vulnerable are the first to pay as aquifer levels fall and soaring bread prices rip up social contracts. Hafed Al-Ghwell Firstly, follow the water — and the money. The conversion of arid landscapes into export-oriented plantations did not happen spontaneously; it was engineered through decades of deliberate policy shifts. Beginning in the 1970s and accelerating into the 1980s, international financial institutions imposed structural adjustment programs that demanded the privatization of state assets, the dismantling of farming subsidies, and wholesale reorientation toward foreign exchange generation. This created an agricultural aristocracy: large-scale agribusinesses and politically connected landowners who secured preferential access to subsidized water and prime land. In Egypt, while smallholders faced crippling energy price hikes for irrigation pumps following subsidy cuts mandated by the International Monetary Fund, forcing many to abandon farming, elite exporters flourished by cultivating water-guzzling strawberries bound for European supermarkets, using state-subsidized infrastructure. This contrasts sharply with the diffuse, long-term societal cost of depleted aquifers and a staggering national food import bill. Egypt's annual wheat expenditure alone dwarfs the collective revenue from its famed citrus and potato exports. Today, exporters form a potent lobby, thereby ensuring policies continue to prioritize their water-intensive cash crops over staples for local consumption, directly undermining national food resilience. Secondly, a dangerous technological fatalism appears to have invaded the region's policy-setting circles. Wealthier countries have conjured a myth of infinite hydrological adaptation through massive, energy-intensive seawater desalination projects. This creates a convenient illusion for leaders in less affluent, and increasingly parched, countries that future megaprojects will absolve them from the need to confront the unsustainable water exports of today. This partly explains why drought-stricken Morocco continues to expand its water-thirsty avocado orchards. And, why Jordan continues to extract water from non-renewable aquifers at rates far exceeding the ability to replenish, to supply farms growing fruit for export while clinging to hopes of large-scale desalination, despite lacking the fiscal capacity or sources of sustainable energy to deploy it meaningfully. Such cognitive dissonance is jarring, since present-day policymakers actively accelerate water depletion for short-term export gains, while banking on unaffordable or ecologically questionable technologies to bail them out later. This 'magical thinking' ignores a harsh arithmetic: the energy cost and environmental footprint of desalinating seawater for basic survival would be exponentially higher than the water that is effectively, and recklessly, exported today in every tonne of off-season berries or citrus fruit. The end result is a system that functions as a slow-motion crisis transfer, extracting irreversible natural capital from the South to subsidize stability and abundance in the North. European consumers gain year-round access to affordable luxury: Moroccan winter strawberries retailing for €2.50 ($3) a kilogram in Parisian supermarkets; Israeli avocados shipped to Dutch tables; all irrigated with water sourced from aquifers that might require millennia to replenish. Simultaneously, Southern Mediterranean elites and transnational agribusinesses secure reliable profits. Moroccan tomato exporters and Egyptian cotton magnates operate with state-subsidized water allocations that distort true resource costs. Meanwhile, the ecological and economic foundations of water-stressed countries undergo systematic erosion. Fossil aquifers are drained. Local food systems atrophy as once-thriving milling industries across Iraq, Syria and Palestine have collapsed, forcing 'Fertile Crescent' countries to become flour importers despite their proximity to the historical heartlands of wheat. Water flows perpetually uphill toward power and capital. The true cost of this — which can be measured in depleted water reserves, escalating import bills, lost agricultural resilience, and the deepening vulnerability of the majority — is borne by the populations and the very ecological stability of these countries. Each tonne of exported citrus uses 560 cubic meters of irreplaceable Egyptian groundwater. Each hectare of Moroccan avocados consumes 1.5 million liters a year, while the taps of the local population run dry. It is a system that sacrifices tomorrow's survival in favor of today's political quietism and foreign exchange — a slow-bleed crisis in which the most vulnerable are the first to pay as aquifer levels fall, deserts advance and soaring bread prices rip up social contracts. Addressing this requires a dismantling of the political economy that privileges water exports over conservation and local nourishment — a task that demands much more courage than simply investing in the next desalination plant.
