Summary: 

“Ahmed Souab”, a lawyer, former administrative judge, and member of the defense team in the grossly case, known in the media as “Conspiracy Case”, had his home raided by the anti-terrorism unit, and was imprisoned following a statement he made in front of the Bar Association, in which he referred to the pressure that’s being put on the judges handling this case. 

Personal Information: 

Name: Ahmed Souab

Nationality: Tunisian

Occupation: Lawyer, former administrative judge, and defense team member in the well-known “Conspiracy Case”.

Violation Incidents: 

On the morning of April 21, 2025, “Ahmed Souab”, a lawyer and former administrative judge, was detained after 10 members of the anti-terrorism unit raided his home. 

Six agents remained outside the house, while the other four entered the residence, confiscated his phone, and escorted him to the headquarters of Bouchoucha.

On the same day, and after a few hours in custody, the investigating judge at the judicial pole of anti-terrorism decided to arrest “Ahmed Souab” for 48 hours and prohibited him from meeting with his lawyer or accessing the case files during that time.

It was under the provisions of Organic Law No. 26 of 2015, dated August 7, 2015, concerning the fight against terrorism, that “Ahmed Souab” was arrested and detained.

 He faces charges including forming a group to commit terrorist crimes, providing any means such as websites, documents, and images of leaders and members of terrorist organizations related to the commission of terrorist acts, such as “ISIS” and “Al-Qaeda”, and assisting individuals who are under investigation, along with other charges outlined in Articles 13, 13 bis, 30, 32, 34, 37, 40, 71, 78 of Law No. 26 of 2015, and amended by Organic Law No. 9 of 2019, dated January 23, 2019.

In addition to this, he faces charges under Articles 32 and 222 of the Penal Code, as well as Article 86 of the Telecommunications Code and Article 24 of Decree No. 54.

This detention came after the appearance of  “Ahmed Souab” on April 19 in front of the Court of Justice, where he spoke about the legal issues in the “Conspiracy Case” and the pressure placed on the judiciary.

In a press conference, his family stated that on the day “Ahmed Souab” was taken to his office on “Rue de la Liberté” in Tunis, he was accompanied by the investigating judge and the president of the regional bar association in Tunis, to have his office searched and his devices confiscated.

And upon uncovering “communication” between him and his colleague related to their professional work, the investigating judge instructed a return to the victim’s home to confiscate all devices found there as well.

Additionally, on the evening of the same day, his house was searched, for the second time, by 15 agents of the anti-terrorism unit, accompanied by 3 SUV’s, where 10 agents remained outside the house, while the other 5 entered the residence, confiscated all his devices, and escorted his son to the headquarters of the anti-terrorism unit in Bouchoucha under the pretext that he needed to sign the police report,  He was later on interrogated for a long period and questioned about the demonstration held in support of his father and its purpose, as he remained at the headquarters for several hours before being released.

On April 23, 2025, the scheduled interrogation of the victim was set to take place at the Judicial Pole for Counter-Terrorism. However, due to the large number of lawyers who had submitted requests to represent “Ahmed Souab”, the authorities barred all of them from attending the session.

The investigating judge requested the attendance of four lawyers and demanded their names in advance, an action that undermines the right to a fair defense and lacks any legal justification. In response, the president of the regional bar association in Tunis decided to boycott the hearing, along with the lawyers who collectively refused to attend the interrogation session.

On the very same day, the investigating judge issued a detention card against him, leading to his placement in the prison of Mornaguia, and scheduled his interrogation date for April 28, 2025, according to his defense.

Human Rights Violations: 

The detention of lawyer and former judge “Ahmed Souab” for fulfilling his role as part of the defense team in the well-known “Conspiracy Case” marks yet another violation in a series of ongoing harassment linked to this case. Detaining and charging him with “terrorism” following a public statement in which he criticized the legal irregularities surrounding the case, especially through the use of a metaphor, reveals the Tunisian authorities’ increasing tendency to adopt systematic measures aimed at silencing dissent and targeting anyone who challenges authoritarian practices.

notably, the statement made by lawyer Ahmed Souab in the course of performing his duties as legal counsel in what is publicly known as the “Conspiracy Case,” must be understood in the light of Article 47 of Decree No. 79 of 2011 which regulates the legal profession, and clearly states: “No legal action may be taken against a lawyer for actions, pleadings, or reports carried out in the course of or in connection with their professional duties. A lawyer may only be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the relevant bodies, authorities, and institutions before which they practice, by the provisions of this decree”.

Therefore, this arbitrary arrest under the Anti-Terrorism Law constitutes yet another episode in the ongoing pattern of systematic repression of free expression and the targeting of independent voices.

Significantly, this constitutes a violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The Tunisian Constitution also guarantees freedom of opinion and expression under Article 37, which affirms that: “Freedom of opinion, thought, expression, media, and publication is guaranteed.” These violations reflect these policies that restrict freedoms, effectively depriving citizens of their right to express their opinions, reducing the principle of free expression from a guaranteed right to an exception, stripping it of its essence.

This stands in contradiction to General Comment No. 34 (2011) of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which clarified that paragraph 2 of Article 19 protects “all forms of expression and the means of their dissemination, including spoken, written, and sign language, as well as non-verbal expressions such as images and artistic works, encompassing books, newspapers, pamphlets, posters, banners, clothing, and legal documents, as well as all audio-visual forms, in addition to electronic and internet-based modes of expression.”