On October 3, 2025, a Tunisian court handed down a death sentence to Saber Chouchen, a 51-year-old day laborer, for Facebook posts deemed offensive to President Kais Saied and threatening to state security. The unprecedented ruling has sent shockwaves through Tunisia and beyond, raising urgent questions about freedom of expression, judicial independence, and the country’s political trajectory.
Chouchen’s conviction, as reported by Reuters and other outlets, marks the first time in Tunisia’s modern history that a citizen has been sentenced to death solely for social media activity. The charges leveled against him were severe: attempting to overthrow the state, insulting the president, and spreading false information online. Judges asserted that his posts incited violence and chaos, violating both Tunisia’s penal code and the controversial 2022 cybercrime law known as Decree 54.
Decree 54, introduced in October 2022, criminalizes the production or dissemination of "false news"—defined as any content that authorities believe infringes on the rights of others, threatens public safety or national defense, or sows terror among the population. Since its passage, journalists and human rights organizations have condemned the law as a blunt instrument for silencing dissent and curbing free speech. According to the BBC, dozens of Tunisians have faced heavy prison sentences for similar offenses since President Saied seized power over all branches of government in July 2021.
Chouchen’s background, as described by his lawyer Oussama Bouthelja in a Facebook statement, underscores the gravity and, to many, the tragedy of the case. A father of three, Chouchen works as a day laborer and suffers from a permanent disability caused by a workplace accident. Bouthelja portrayed his client as socially vulnerable, possessing limited education and little online influence. "Most of the content he shared was copied from other pages, and some posts received no engagement at all," the lawyer wrote. In court, Chouchen reportedly stated, "My intent was to draw authorities’ attention to my difficult living conditions, not to incite unrest."
The case has laid bare the shifting landscape of rights and freedoms in Tunisia, a nation once hailed as the lone democratic success story of the 2011 Arab Spring. For years, Tunisia was seen as a beacon of hope in the Middle East and North Africa—a place where ordinary citizens could voice dissent and hold leaders to account. But since President Saied suspended parliament and consolidated his power in 2021, those freedoms have steadily eroded. Saied continues to rule by decree, and many of his most vocal critics are either in prison or living in exile. The opposition has gone so far as to call Saied’s actions a coup, as reported by Reuters.
Chouchen’s sentence is not only unprecedented; it’s also deeply controversial. While capital punishment remains on Tunisia’s books, no executions have been carried out since the execution of a serial killer in 1991. Civilian courts do occasionally issue death sentences—typically for the gravest crimes—but the leap to applying such a penalty for online speech has alarmed rights advocates. As the head of the Tunisian League for Human Rights told Reuters, "The judge in the Nabeul court sentenced the man to death over Facebook posts. It is a shocking and unprecedented ruling." Chouchen’s lawyer confirmed that the judgment has already been appealed.
Public reaction in Tunisia has been swift and, in many quarters, furious. Social media platforms lit up with condemnation and ridicule of the court’s decision, with activists and ordinary citizens alike warning that such harsh measures could further stifle free expression and deepen political tensions. Many described the ruling as a deliberate attempt to instill fear among critics of President Saied. Jamal Chouchane, Saber’s brother, expressed his family’s distress to Reuters: "We are a family suffering from poverty, and now oppression and injustice have been added to poverty."
The broader context of Chouchen’s sentencing cannot be ignored. Since Saied dissolved the elected parliament and began ruling by decree, Tunisia has faced mounting criticism from international rights groups over the erosion of judicial independence. Most prominent opposition leaders—whom the president has labeled as traitors—are imprisoned on various charges. The use of Decree 54 in this case, and in many others, has become emblematic of what critics say is a systematic campaign to suppress dissent. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the law’s vague language gives authorities wide latitude to interpret online speech as criminal, creating a chilling effect on journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens alike.
Despite the severity of the sentence, it remains unclear whether it will ever be carried out. Tunisia has not executed anyone for more than three decades, and there is a longstanding, if unofficial, moratorium on the death penalty. Still, the symbolic weight of the ruling is immense. Rights advocates warn that even the threat of capital punishment for online expression sets a dangerous precedent, one that could embolden other governments in the region to adopt similarly draconian measures.
The case has also highlighted the personal plight of Chouchen himself. As Bouthelja emphasized, his client is not a political heavyweight or a social media influencer. He is, by all accounts, a regular citizen struggling to make ends meet. "Most of the content he shared was copied from other pages, and some posts received no engagement at all," Bouthelja reiterated. This point has resonated with many Tunisians, who see in Chouchen’s story a reflection of their own frustrations and fears under a tightening regime.
International observers are watching closely. Tunisia’s legacy as the birthplace of the Arab Spring still holds symbolic power, and developments there are often seen as bellwethers for the region. The use of the death penalty for online speech, even if not ultimately enforced, could have ripple effects far beyond Tunisia’s borders. As one rights advocate put it, "Applying the death penalty for online speech sets a dangerous precedent."
As the legal process moves forward—Chouchen’s appeal is now pending—many are left to wonder what the future holds for freedom of expression in Tunisia. Will this case stand as a warning to others, or will it galvanize resistance to what critics call an increasingly authoritarian turn? For now, one thing is clear: the stakes for ordinary Tunisians, and for the region as a whole, have rarely been higher.
