Tunisian court keeps four flotilla activists in pretrial detention

Tunisia’s Court of Appeal has rejected a challenge to the continued detention of four activists linked to fundraising for the Global Sumud Flotilla, according to Al Jazeera. Their lawyers deny wrongdoing, while families say some detainees are suffering serious health problems during hunger strikes.
Tunisia’s Court of Appeal has rejected a challenge to the continued detention of four activists linked to the Global Sumud Flotilla, leaving them in pretrial custody for another four months. Wael Naouar, Ghassan Henchiri, Ghassan Boughdiri and Nabil Channoufi have been held since March during an investigation by Tunisia’s Economic and Financial Judicial Pole. The inquiry concerns alleged financial irregularities involving funds raised for a campaign seeking to deliver aid to Gaza and challenge Israel’s blockade.
The activists and their defence team deny wrongdoing and say they are innocent. Judicial sources cited by Tunisia’s TAP news agency said investigators were examining the origin and use of the funds and whether any had been diverted. The defence has questioned why the men remain imprisoned while the investigation continues.
Lawyer Ghassan Ghribi described the extension as an “exception to the exception” and said the investigating judge had spent six months without carrying out investigative work beyond questioning the activists. Naouar began a hunger strike on August 16 and was transferred to hospital as his health deteriorated. He suspended the strike after 38 days following appeals from lawyers and supporters.
Henchiri, Boughdiri and Channoufi remain on hunger strike. Naouar’s father told Al Jazeera that his son had difficulty seeing, keeping water down and controlling his left leg. Henchiri’s father said his son remained conscious but visibly exhausted.
The case has also widened to include 14 people detained after a September 19 protest. A lawyer said they face charges including participating in a gathering allegedly intended to disturb public order. Authorities describe the original case as a financial investigation and reject claims that the judiciary is being used to silence opponents.
This independently written report is based on information supplied by the named publisher. Vertrix News has not independently verified the source report.