The Tunisian political movement Ennahdha expressed, on Tuesday, its call for the release of its Secretary General and former member of the dissolved parliament, Ajmi Lourimi.
In a statement released, Ennahdha condemned the continued detention of Lourimi, who was imprisoned from March 6 to 10 without legal justification. The movement considers this arrest to be « arbitrary » and strongly criticized the attitude of the court, which ignored the release requests presented by his lawyers, as reported by the website Espace Manager. However, this detention case is not limited to the arrest of Lourimi alone.
Ennahdha highlights a broader phenomenon affecting the entire Tunisian political system since President Kaïs Saïed took control of the country.
Under his regime, the repression of political opponents, critical voices, and democratic movements has intensified, leading to an atmosphere of fear and intolerance towards opposition. The movement asserts that the arrest of Lourimi is part of a systematic crackdown and that the Tunisian judiciary is now being used as a political tool to stifle any form of dissent.
Since Kaïs Saïed’s rise to power in July 2021, Tunisia, which had emerged as a model of democratic transition after the 2011 revolution, has moved toward increasingly marked authoritarianism.
Saïed has progressively concentrated executive, legislative, and judicial powers into his hands, dissolving the parliament, revising the constitution through a presidential decree, and violently repressing dissenting voices.
Last week, the terrorism-specialized court chamber decided to refer Lourimi and Mossâab Gharbi, another Ennahdha activist, to the criminal court for trial, due to the absence of any information regarding an alleged terrorist offense. Such accusations are common in the current political context and are often used to discredit, morally destroy, and imprison opponents without any real basis.
Western analysts warn against the authoritarian drift of Saïed’s regime, which weakens democratic institutions and threatens the independence of the judiciary.
They argue that this situation is not isolated and forms part of a broader strategy to « monopolize power » and « silence all forms of opposition. »
Under the pretext of national security and the fight against terrorism, the authorities are using judicial mechanisms to eliminate any dissenting voices, whether in civil society, political parties, or trade unions.