The dynamic at the trial over Libyan financing is now fixed. On one side, there is a defendant – in fact, the defendant who draws all the attention: Nicolas Sarkozy. He dominates the space with restless energy. He speaks loudly, a whirlwind of words. He gestures, turns left and right, repeatedly asks, “If I may?” and then proceeds without always waiting for an answer.
For hours on the stand, the former president deploys all his energy and rhetorical skills to dress up, as best he can, the same two-pronged message he has been delivering robotically for a month. These messages are that: 1) the case – the allegation his 2007 election campaign was part-funded by the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi – is devoid of merit; 2) when confronted with evidence that it is not, he swears he knew nothing, at any time. He admits that he may not always have been well served by those around him – his close allies and former ministers Brice Hortefeux and Claude Guéant are clearly there to take the blows without flinching - but he insists it is still not his fault.
Enlargement : Illustration 1
On the other side, there is the presiding judge, Nathalie Gavarino, with her two assistant judges; the three prosecutors from the financial crimes prosecution unit the Parquet National Financier (PNF), representing the prosecution; and the lawyers for the civil parties, representing anti-corruption organisations (Sherpa, Anticor, and Transparency International) and families of the victims of Gaddafi’s terrorism.
Operating on what are by their nature different levels, they share a common approach: quietly and methodically, without spectacle or dramatic flourishes, they are assembling the factual building blocks of the case. With each hearing, they construct a picture of Sarkozy’s France - a world of toxic intermediaries, shadow diplomacy and hidden money. The latter issue will be examined by the court in the coming days.
We are only a third of the way through the trial, and its outcome - already unique in legal history - will determine which strategy prevails in the only arena that matters in court: the intersection of facts and law.
In the meantime, however, Nicolas Sarkozy appeared on the back foot, even embarrassed, as contradictions emerged on Wednesday, February 5th, in two key aspects of the case: the nuclear deal France sought to sell to the Libyan dictatorship in 2007 and the 2012 exfiltration of Muammar Gaddafi’s right-hand man, Bashir Saleh, despite him being wanted by Interpol. These are two possible quid pro quos for what the prosecution alleges was a corruption pact forged as early as autumn 2005.
Guéant contradicts Sarkozy
On the issue of nuclear power, Nicolas Sarkozy had already explained in a previous hearing that it was never part of any deal. He argued that while he had indeed signed agreements to sell a reactor to Gaddafi, this was merely a continuation of an initiative started by his predecessor as head of state, Jacques Chirac. In any case, he insisted, the story ended in December 2007 with Gaddafi’s visit, as no further action was taken and the Libyans abandoned the project midway. Proof, he claimed, that there was absolutely nothing to investigate on this front.
Yet, when it was his turn to speak, Claude Guéant - Sarkozy’s former chief of staff at the Ministry of Interior and later his secretary at the Élysée, effectively his closest aide for a decade - gave testimony stating almost the exact opposite. France had not pursued Gaddafi’s nuclear ambitions? On the contrary, Guéant stated that “work” had been “carried out” on the issue “at regular intervals”, but that the Libyan nuclear project had stalled due to “failings on the part of [nuclear firm] Areva, which did nothing”.
Had he wanted to lend weight to the testimony of Anne Lauvergeon, the former head of French nuclear giant Areva - who told the court last week that selling a reactor to an “irrational” dictator was madness and that she had worked behind the scenes to discreetly block the deal - Claude Guéant could not have done a better job.
Worse still, Sarkozy’s right-hand man also described as “plausible” an anecdote, again from Anne Lauvergeon, in which he had apparently insisted in April 2010 – in other words, three years later - on the importance of the Libyan nuclear project during a meeting at the Élysée that was attended by Henri Proglio, chair of French energy utility EDF. “I may indeed have said that the matter was still relevant. I had just returned from a meeting with the Libyan government. There was a clear desire from the Libyan authorities to push ahead,” Guéant confirmed, as Sarkozy, sitting beside him, jaws clenched, grasped that their versions simply did not match.
Sarkozy contradicts Sarkozy
The former president was also asked about the exfiltration - or rather, exfiltrations - of Bashir Saleh, the man who held all the Gaddafi regime's financial secrets. Called to the stand, Nicolas Sarkozy laid out a pile of notes on the lectern in front of him and launched into a statement that sounded more like a defence lawyer's argument, or even a speech. Laure Heinich, a lawyer representing civil parties, rose to point out that it was highly unusual for a defendant to be allowed to recite their case in this way, particularly using personal notes that were not part of the official proceedings. “It's true that this lacks spontaneity,” conceded Presiding Judge Gavarino, who indicated she was committed to the oral nature of the hearings, while allowing a witness or defendant to occasionally refer to notes.
On the substance of the issue, Nicolas Sarkozy admitted having given “political agreement” for France to allow Gaddafi’s chief of staff, who had been arrested by Libya’s new French-backed authorities, to enter the country in November 2011. The problem here is that during the investigation, Sarkozy had sworn he had “never” granted such authorisation. This is a contradiction the PNF prosecutors are unlikely to overlook. “I don’t think that can be called a contradiction,” Sarkozy responded, in the face of all the evidence.
This first extraction or exfiltration of Bashir Saleh, monitored in real time by the French overseas intelligence agency the DGSE, had been handled by the suspected agent of corruption Alexandre Djouhri (who is also on trial), who flew the Libyan from Tunisia to France aboard his private jet. Sarkozy told the court he knew nothing about this. He simply acknowledged that he had agreed to receive Saleh, a friend of France who, he repeatedly insisted, had “no blood on his hands”.
Sarkozy was evidently never far from Saleh, like a reassuring shadow. The Libyan official entered France using a visa issued at the request of the Élysée. Once in the country, he was granted a temporary residence permit thanks to the intervention of Bernard Squarcini, the head of domestic intelligence under Sarkozy, and Michel Gaudin, the Paris police chief - who is now Nicolas Sarkozy’s chief of staff.
Welcomed and protected by France, Saleh later travelled widely. He went to Mauritania, where he met Gaddafi’s former number two, the terrorist Abdullah Senussi - who most certainly did have blood on his hands and who had met in secret with Claude Guéant and Brice Hortefeux in Tripoli in 2005, without the knowledge of the French embassy. This was shortly before the first payments in early 2006, allegedly channelled via the other suspected fixer in the case, Ziad Takieddine.
The judicial investigation established that on March 15th 2012, Interpol issued a red notice - the equivalent of an arrest warrant - against Bashir Saleh, who was accused of embezzlement and fraud by the authorities in Tripoli. Then, on April 17th, the French investigative weekly Le Canard enchaîné revealed that Gaddafi’s right-hand man, wanted by Interpol, was in France. Nicolas Sarkozy told the court he was never informed of that. It had been “a long time” since he had read Le Canard enchaîné, he said. The same clearly applied to his press office.
Sarkozy points the finger at Guéant
The plot thickened on April 28th that year when Mediapart published a Libyan memo implicating Bashir Saleh and Abdullah Senussi in the possible secret funding of Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2007 presidential campaign. Amid the media storm, Sarkozy declared on RMC radio and BFMTV news channel on May 1st that if Bashir Saleh was indeed the subject of a red notice - as he was, and as the French authorities undoubtedly knew - then he would be arrested.
Yet in court, the former president now claimed that, at the time, the Interpol notice was “not a priority” for him. What mattered was the election campaign rally he was about to hold in Paris. “I had 120,000 people coming to the Trocadéro [editor's note, the Place du Trocadero is a square in central Paris where Sarkozy held a rally on May 1st 2012], and my main concern was, ‘Will it rain?’” Presiding judge Gavarinothen suggested to him that “perhaps we don't need to go into quite so much detail”.
Can we put an end to this gibberish that nobody understands?
Two days later, on May 3rd, a miracle took place: Bashir Saleh fled France after a meeting with Bernard Squarcini and Alexandre Djouhri. He flew out of Le Bourget airport, north-east of Paris, on a private jet, travelling under his real name but with a false identity listed on the flight plan (that of Alexandre Djouhri). No authority raised an eyebrow, and no arrest was made, despite the fact that Saleh was listed in the national database of wanted persons. “No one, directly or indirectly, has claimed that I was informed of his departure,” Sarkozy pointed out.
When it came to Bernard Squarcini’s involvement, Sarkozy, who was adamant that the spy chief was not a close ally, weaved around the issue. “I cannot imagine that he would have deliberately obstructed the execution of this warrant. That would be a grave mistake if it were true,” he told the court.
“Why would I make him leave when he [editor's note, Saleh] was the only witness acting in good faith in my favour?” Sarkozy asked.
“You're the one who made sure he wasn't arrested in France,” prosecutor Quentin Dandoy shot back at him.
“Can we put an end to this gibberish that nobody understands?” Sarkozy later responded, unwittingly echoing the title of Mediapart’s documentary on the Libyan affair, which is currently in cinemas: 'Personne n’y comprend rien' ('Nobody understands anything'). Laughter rippled through the courtroom.
Back in 2018, during police questioning, and again before the judges in 2020, Sarkozy appeared to shift the blame - once more - onto Claude Guéant, who was interior minister at the time of Saleh’s extraction. In police custody, Sarkozy had stated: “From the moment he was appointed interior minister, he was no longer my member of staff […]. From then on, he had his own political standing, his own operational independence as minister.” Later, under questioning, he added: “The file contains Bashir Saleh’s network of contacts, which shows that he did not go through me. What happened was not right, but I cannot be held responsible, actively or passively […] I was merely incidental to an existing network of friendships.”
Questioned by the court about the Saleh episode, Claude Guéant refused to take the fall, while remaining vague and refraining from pointing fingers. “I played absolutely no role in his departure,” he asserted. Pressed on when and from whom he learned of Saleh’s escape, he merely replied: “I'm unable to answer.” As for Bernard Squarcini’s role – as domestic intelligence chief Squarcini was under his authority at the time - Guéant was no more forthcoming. He did not know.
What he did know, however, was that by “using shortcuts, you can prove anything by piecing together unrelated bits of information”.
The trial continues on Thursday, February 6th.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- The original French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Michael Streeter