Title: The affair of the former Mauritanian president: A trial under high tension
Introduction :
The former Mauritanian president, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, is currently at the heart of a major trial which began nine months ago. Accused of illicit enrichment, abuse of power and money laundering, he risks a sentence of 20 years in prison as well as confiscation of his property. Defense attorneys recently began closing arguments, seeking a full acquittal for their client. This article offers you an overview of the case and the different arguments that oppose each other during this trial which is attracting all the attention in Mauritania.
The arguments of the defense lawyers:
Defense lawyers rely mainly on article 93 of the Mauritanian Constitution, which stipulates that the president can only be tried for high treason and before the High Court of Justice. According to them, this means that the former president cannot be tried in a common law court for acts committed during his mandate, except in exceptional cases. They therefore maintain that their client benefits from absolute immunity even after his mandate. However, some lawyers for the civil party emphasize that this immunity does not apply to acts detachable from his presidential function such as illicit enrichment and money laundering.
The indictment based on the hearings of witnesses:
Another point of tension in this trial concerns the basis of the indictment presented by the prosecutor. Defense lawyers say it relies solely on witness interviews, without hard evidence or official documents. They therefore question the legitimacy of these testimonies and ask for concrete evidence to support the accusations made against their client.
The debate on the nature of the offenses committed:
The civil party’s lawyers also emphasize that the former president did not act as President of the Republic, but rather as a trader involved in economic crimes. They say the alleged acts, such as illicit enrichment and money laundering, are not part of his presidential prerogatives and can therefore be tried even after his term.
Conclusion :
The trial of former Mauritanian president Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz is marked by intense debates regarding presidential immunity and the validity of the evidence presented. While the defense lawyers invoke article 93 of the Mauritanian Constitution to argue in favor of their client’s absolute immunity, the civil party’s lawyers emphasize that the alleged offenses are separable from his presidential function. This case continues to capture attention in Mauritania, and the court’s final decision will be decisive for the former president’s future.