The plight of Tunisian attorney Mohamed Abbou has been in the spotlight for several weeks now, with United States State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher being quoted earlier this month as saying Washington is “very concerned” about Abbou’s imprisonment.
The attorney received a three-and-a-half-year sentence last month for having made statements deemed likely to disturb public order — this after he criticised Tunisian President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali’s invitation to Israel’s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, to attend the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
The conference is scheduled to take place in Tunisia’s capital, Tunis, in November.
Abbou placed his critique on the Tunisnews website, which is censored in Tunisia.
The attorney also posted an article in which he compared prison conditions in the North African country to those at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. This jail became the focus of international attention in April last year because of the abusive treatment a number of its inmates received at the hands of occupying American forces.
Abbou’s sentence shook public opinion in Tunisia, and was greeted with particular alarm by the country’s legal community, which staged a round-the-clock sit-in over the trial. This demonstration was held at the Tunisian bar association’s premises, opposite the Palace of Justice.
Hearings in the case got under way on April 28, with large numbers of police and a few international observers in attendance. Police laid siege to the Palace of Justice, closing its gates to Tunisian observers and violently evicting those who managed to slip inside anyway.
Procedural flaws
Abbou’s attorney, Raouf Ayadi, says the trial was marred by numerous procedural flaws, such as the merging of the case about alleged incitement to public disorder with an assault charge filed by a ruling-party official, apparently to discredit Abbou.
He also pointed to the judges’ refusal to allow several defence requests, including a plea for the hearing to be postponed so that the dossier for the assault charge could be examined.
In addition, defence witnesses were refused permission to appear, says Ayadi. The presiding judges made no effort to disguise the fact the trial was a “settling of political accounts that the regime often inflicts on dissidents”, he notes.
This is the same Tunisia that prides itself on having liberalised the internet and on promoting the information society.
Huge placards advertising the WSIS greet arrivals at Tunisian airports. In every speech given at commemorations or on public holidays, Ben Ali mentions this United Nations event, on one occasion describing it as “the international community’s vote of confidence in Tunisia’s clear-sighted policies”.
But, “In Tunisia, they’re more likely to liberalise guns than words,” says Khelil Ezzaouia, leader of the Tunisian League for Human Rights (LTDH). Activists allege that the country’s affairs are organised simply to create the appearance of democracy and respect for the rule of law, to ensure that Tunisia receives support from developed nations.
In part, this is achieved through manipulation of advertising revenues.
Under law, the Tunisian External Communication Agency (ATCE), Tunisia’s official public-relations body, is allowed to allocate public funds set aside for advertising. As the LTDH and other rights organisations have noted, advertising slots are only bought in publications that take an uncritical view of the government.
Activists say private advertisers are expected to restrict themselves to media approved by the ATCE, failing which they may be subject to tax audits or other unwelcome attention from the government.
According to the National Council for Liberties in Tunisia, approved publications specialise in defamation of dissidents and singing the praises of Ben Ali.
Of the 300 newspapers published in Tunisia, only two are opposition-party publications: Al Mawkif and Attariq al Jadid. However, these papers are not allowed to advertise or solicit public support.
The broadcast media are, almost without exception, state-run.
A single private station called Radio Mosaique received permission to go on air in November last year. However, the conditions under which this licence was granted appear somewhat dubious. Concerns have also been expressed about the manner in which a licence was awarded to the sole, nominally private television station, Hannibal — which is subsidised by the government.
The results of this media ownership policy could be seen during the 2004 presidential election.
A report on media coverage during the campaign compiled by International Media Support criticised the amount of print and airtime devoted to the president, who was returned to office for a fourth term with 94,45% of the vote. International Media Support, based in Copenhagen, works to strengthen press freedom around the world.
“President Ben Ali was the central figure in this campaign, receiving about 77% of coverage done by the audiovisual media, and about 92% of coverage in the written press,” said the document.
Khedija Chérif, a well-known human rights activist, despairs at this situation.
“Under the guise of enjoying freedom of expression, Tunisians content themselves with the ‘political stability’ provided by the iron fist of Ben Ali … and postpone their hopes for democracy,” he notes. — IPS
This analysis was jointly published by InfoSud, a news agency based in Switzerland, and IPS