Category World News

Ahmed Souab, a lawyer and fervent critic of President Kais Saeed, was sentenced by a Tunisian court to five years in prison, according to his lawyer, according to his lawyer. The case, according to rights groups, shows a furthering crackdown on dissent in the North African nation.

After being detained in April, Yosr Hamid, a defense lawyer, received a second three-year sentence of “administrative supervision” after receiving criticism of the legal system in a trial of prominent figures, including opposition leaders.

Hamid expressed concerns that Souab’s trial on “anti-terror” charges would set a troubling legal precedent.

In Tunisia, hundreds of opposition figures, lawyers, journalists, trade unionists, and humanitarian workers are facing charges for “conspiracy” or “fake news” being violated by authorities.

Rights activists have criticized the legislation, Decree Law 54, because some courts have criticized its broad interpretation.

Souab, 68, allegedly declined to testify via videolink in court on Friday, according to Hamid. Under the circumstances, his legal team refused to enter a plea.

Souab is charged with a dozen counts related to the false information presidential decree.

Before the judge retired to deliberate, Hamid told the AFP news agency on Friday. “The hearing lasted only seven minutes.”

He claimed that the trial’s outcome was “a precedent” and that there were “lack of fundamental grounds for a fair trial.”

The defendant’s brother, Mongi Souab, criticized the trial’s briefness, claiming that authorities “prevented family members from entering” the court.

A “dangerous escalation”

After criticizing the trial process for about 40 prominent people, including opposition figures, in a case involving “conspiracy against state security,” Souab was detained in April.

In that case, figures from what was once the largest party, Ennahdha, including Said Ferjani, a member of the political executive, and former prime minister Hichem Mechichi, former leader and former leader of the party, Noureddine Bhiri, as well as former members of the party’s leadership.

One of the principal defense attorneys was Souab.

After a trial that involved just three hearings, Souab claimed that the trial’s organizers had “put a knife to the judge’s throat” by refusing to provide closing arguments or defense arguments.

The comment was interpreted as a threat to judges by an anti-terrorist court, and Souab was taken into custody for it, according to his attorneys, who claimed it was a reference to the intense political pressure judges are subject to.

In the “conspiracy” mega-trial, defendants received hefty prison sentences of up to 74 years. On November 17, the appeal relating to that trial is scheduled to occur.

Siling opposing voices

On Friday, several dozen people chanted that the nation was “under repression and tyranny” and held demonstrations outside the court.

Since Said’s retake of power in 2021, which critics have characterized as a coup, a number of Tunisian and international NGOs have decried a rollback of rights and freedoms.

In a broadening crackdown, Tunisian authorities on Friday ordered the suspension of the Nawaat journalists’ group, which runs one of the nation’s top independent investigative media outlets.

Following similar actions against well-known civil society organizations, including the Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights and the Association of Democratic Women, which are both renowned for defending civil liberties, the one-month suspension comes.

Legal advocates claimed that the real goal was to silence opposing voices, despite the fact that authorities cited financial audits relating to foreign funding as justification.

The suspension was described as “a dangerous escalation in efforts to silence independent journalism under an administrative guise,” according to the National Union of Tunisian Journalists.

Before and after the revolution, Nawaat conducted investigations into corruption and human rights violations. It stated in a statement that it would not be “intimidated by the current political climate or defamation campaigns.”

A government shutdown that drags on will require the administration of President Donald Trump to halt food assistance to low-income people, according to two federal judges in the country.

Both of Friday’s decisions, which were made within minutes, concerned the SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program’s fate.

One in eight US citizens, or 42 million people, rely on SNAP to provide for their households. On Saturday, that assistance was scheduled to come to an end.

Since Congress was unable to pass a budget bill in September, the Trump administration has argued that neither it can continue to fund the program nor use emergency funds to cover the shortfall.

However, that logic was thrown into question by both of Friday’s rulings.

US District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston made the first decision, setting a Monday deadline for the Trump administration to address how, at least partially, SNAP could be funded. She argued that suspending the program completely was “unlawful.”

She also ruled that, as the government has done previously, it was acceptable to use government contingency funds to pay for SNAP.

According to Indira, “Defendants’ suspension of SNAP payments was based on the erroneous conclusion that the Contingency Funds could not be used to ensure the continuation of SNAP payments.”

The defendants are now required to use those contingency funds as required by the SNAP program, according to this court.

The District of Columbia and 25 Democrat-led states filed petitions challenging the federal government’s claim that it had the power to halt the food assistance program entirely.

US District Judge John McConnell’s Rhode Island court rendered the second decision.

Trump’s SNAP benefits suspension there was challenged by a group of cities, nonprofits, and labor organizations. McConnell and his Boston colleague both reached the same conclusions in their responses.

There is no denying that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror that some people have experienced because of the availability of food and support for their families, according to McConnell during a virtual hearing.

He demanded an update from the administration on Monday and demanded that the government continue funding SNAP.

Never has SNAP been threatened before by the Trump administration.

Both plaintiffs claimed that the Trump administration’s actions appeared to be attempts to use food aid as political leverage.

Additionally, they made a point of mentioning that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had stated that it would use emergency funds to keep SNAP benefits while the government was in session.

However, the Trump administration changed its tune on October 26 by putting a message on the USDA website.

The message read, “Bottom line, the well has run dry.” There won’t be any benefits effective as of November 1 at this time.

The USDA has “necessary” use of at least $5.25 billion in contingency funds to continue providing benefits, which Congress previously allocated for use when “necessary to carry out program operations.”

The Trump administration has pledged to use the situation to reduce government employment and programs it views unfavorably, despite previous government shutdowns that have caused delays and interruptions to government services.

The shutdown is currently past its 31st day. Republicans and Democrats continue to debate the budget bill’s passage in an effort to keep the federal government open.

Republicans have veered off on the issue until a continuing resolution that keeps federal spending at its current level is passed, while Democrats want to make sure healthcare issues are addressed in the legislation.

On Friday, senior Trump officials vowed to keep their grip on the SNAP contingency funds.

According to Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, “contingency funds can only flow when the underlying fund is flowing,” she said to reporters.