By Ahmed Haridi
Tunisia is not just another partner for the European Union along the southern Mediterranean rim. The North African country plays a central role in Europe’s migration and security policy. Since July 2023, Brussels has relied on a €900 million partnership with President Kaïs Saïed, officially aimed at stabilizing Tunisia’s economy and modernizing state structures. In practice, however, the agreement is a migration control deal: Europe pays—and expects Tunisia to act as a forward defense line, sealing off migration routes across the Mediterranean.
Now, the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen has taken another step in this direction. It has proposed adding Tunisia to the EU’s list of “safe countries of origin”—a political decision with far-reaching consequences. Refugees coming from countries deemed “safe” face fast-track asylum procedures, low chances of being granted protection, and swift deportation. The implicit message: Tunisia is a country where no one faces political persecution. But that notion stands in stark contrast to the realities on the ground.
At the very moment the Commission made its proposal, around 40 men and women stood trial in Tunis, accused of plotting against state security. Observers say it was a politically motivated show trial. The defendants: human rights activists, opposition members, journalists, and civil society figures—people who had, in one way or another, expressed criticism of President Saïed. The authoritarian leader has been cracking down on dissent for months, imprisoning critics and bringing them to court under often fabricated charges.
The trial shines a harsh light on Tunisia’s domestic situation. The judiciary is increasingly politicized, the rule of law is being hollowed out, and freedom of expression is under severe attack. Declaring such a country “safe” under EU asylum law is not only cynical—it risks undermining the credibility of Europe’s core values.
This places the European Union in a dilemma: It needs partners in North Africa to control migration—but risks empowering authoritarian regimes and turning a blind eye to the persecution of political dissidents. Tunisia is not just a strategic partner—it is also a political risk. The real question is: How much rule of law is Europe willing to sacrifice to fortify its external borders?
The defendants represented a cross-section of Tunisian society: liberal and Islamist politicians, businesspeople, journalists, and members of civil society. The alleged ringleader of the supposed conspiracy was a businessman with past ties to the ousted dictator Ben Ali. Feminists were also among the accused.
One name on the list of defendants caused particular outrage: French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy. According to media reports, he was accused of “Freemasonry” and of having links to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. He allegedly sought to infiltrate and destabilize the Tunisian state.
The trial was largely closed to the public. According to local reports, not even the indictment was read aloud in court. In a rapid proceeding, the court handed down harsh sentences: prison terms ranging from 13 to 66 years. Lévy was sentenced in absentia to 33 years behind bars.
Families of the defendants, along with civil society groups, protested vehemently. Terms like “madness,” “political verdict,” and “judicial assassination” were used to describe the outcome. A former Tunisian minister and human rights activist wrote: “This trial is an insult to our intelligence, a slap in the face of justice, and spit in the face of the rule of law.”
One of the country’s most prominent lawyers, Ahmed Souab, told television cameras that it was not the defendants who felt “a knife at their throat” during the proceedings, but rather the presiding judge. He then made a gesture mimicking a throat being cut. For that, Souab was arrested and placed in pretrial detention on charges of “terrorist acts.”
His fellow lawyers insist that Souab never meant to threaten the judge, but rather to express a political truth: President Kaïs Saïed had ordered the vague and sweeping indictment, and put the court under pressure to deliver harsh sentences.
The trial is emblematic of Tunisia’s climate of growing repression. Elected president in 2019, Kaïs Saïed suspended parliament on July 25, 2021, dismissed the sitting prime minister, and installed a new government. He later brought the judiciary under his control. In July 2022, he secured sweeping new powers through a referendum. Today, opposition voices warn that Tunisia has returned to the authoritarian conditions that prevailed under former dictator Ben Ali, who was ousted during the Arab Spring in 2011.
Within the EU, the partnership with Tunisia was seen as a blueprint for similar deals now struck with Mauritania, Egypt, and Lebanon. It was brokered primarily by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, in coordination with Ursula von der Leyen. The deal seems to have paid off for the EU: the number of migrants departing from Tunisia toward Italy across the Mediterranean has dropped significantly. This applies both to sub-Saharan migrants transiting through Tunisia and to Tunisians themselves.
Now, EU member states and the European Parliament must decide whether to approve the Commission’s proposal to designate Tunisia as a safe country of origin at the EU level. Tunisia would then appear on a list alongside official EU accession candidates (with the exception of Ukraine), as well as Kosovo, Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, and Morocco. Ten EU member states have already made such a designation at the national level. In practice, this means asylum applications from Tunisian nationals are processed through fast-track procedures with limited chances of success. The EU-wide recognition rate for Tunisian asylum seekers stood at just 4 percent in 2024.
The Commission acknowledges that Tunisia does experience repression against opposition figures and sexual minorities—but concludes that this does not amount to “systematic persecution.” Therefore, it states, “the general population of Tunisia is not, in principle, at risk of persecution or serious harm.” It also emphasizes that each asylum application will continue to be assessed individually.
