Passionate, speaking loudly, and gesticulating in the witness box, Nicolas Sarkozy was in combative mood when he was cross-examined at the 11th criminal court in Paris on Tuesday June 15th 2021. It was the fourth week of evidence in the trial concerning the colossal overspend uncovered in his 2012 presidential election campaign but it was the first time that the former French president and defendant - he is charged with “illegal funding of an election campaign” - had been in court.
The ex-head of state set the tone from the start, insisting that there was nothing out of the ordinary about his 2012 campaign, even though prosecutors claim it spent 42.8 million euros - nearly double the legal limit. “I'd been irritated in the 2007 campaign by the fact the HQ was too big,” he told the court. “Before that I'd seen Jacques Chirac [editor's note the former president] have offices with four storeys. It served no purpose and it cost money. I wanted something smaller, around 500 square metres [of office space],” Nicolas Sarkozy told the court.
“The candidate's job,” he continued, speaking of himself in the third person, “is above all to work out what to say to the French people. Why five more years?” he said, referring to the fact that he was seeking re-election after his 2007-2012 presidency. He gave the impression that he was concerned solely with strategic and political issues, and not in any way with the logistics of the campaign. In his at times verbose comments the former president also found time to have a few digs at the expense of his 2012 rival, François Hollande, who won that election, and Jean-François Cope, the man who led Sarkozy's UMP party at the time.
“I hear what you say, but what interests the court is how the campaign was organised,” interjected presiding judge Caroline Viguier. Despite warnings at the time from accountants about the level of spending in the campaign, the pace at which political rallies were held accelerated from March 2012.
“Indeed, there were two changes,” replied Nicolas Sarkozy. “I was president of the Republic and I had presided over the G20 meeting [editor's note, held in Cannes in November 2011]. Strictly speaking I only entered the campaign a month later than in 2007, and then the tragic Merah affair suspended the campaign for a week,” he said, referring to the killings carried out by Mohamed Merah in south-west France in March of that year.
Enlargement : Illustration 1
The defendant then highlighted his long experience of elections. “Politics is my life,” he said, becoming more and more animated. “I have never seen a campaign, large or small, which didn't accelerate, every campaign keeps growing!” His arms and legs constantly in motion, Nicolas Sarkozy then began to speak more quickly. “I did 44 or 45 rallies, as in 2007, but in one month fewer.”
The judge asked: “The question is, did you know how many meetings there were going to be? Did you establish a framework, choose the team, the service provider? What instructions did you give?”
On the defensive, Nicolas Sarkozy put forward his arguments. “I chose no service provider, small, medium or large, neither in 2007 nor in 2012! Allow me to respond forcibly, because a campaign is not like a report by a court bailiff, you have to adapt all the time. Every day you have to feed the news monster. My 2012 campaign closely resembled my 2007 one,” he said, even though the rigged accounts and the abundance of technical resources in 2012 indicate otherwise.
The former president rejected suggestions that the 2012 campaign had “run away” with itself, and that this could explain the explosion in the costs of the meetings organised by the public relations and events company Bygmalion who were used for the campaign. “The difference is just that in 2007 I was president of the UMP, and I campaigned with my team,” he said, addressing his comments to the 'rival' group in 2012 based around Jean-François Copé. “The 2012 campaign did not run away with itself! I'd like someone to explain to me in what way I campaigned more in 2012 than in 2007,” he said indignantly, his arms spread wide, as if appealing for everyone to show common sense.
The former president bestowed compliments on his campaign director Guillaume Lambert and the campaign treasurer Philippe Briand. But he was unsparing in his remarks about others. “They weren't vestal virgins at the UMP who were terrified by the tiger Sarkozy! Jean-François Copé wasn't intimidated by me, believe me! If the court is entertaining the idea that there were some insipid figures around the candidate, allow me to say that that's stupid!” he said, raising his shoulders and not looking straight at the judges.
Mixing long tirades with cutting remarks, Nicolas Sarkozy seemed to have a problem with answering precise questions and with sometimes being interrupted. “I took part in the campaign. I accept my responsibilities, I always have,” he said, suddenly speaking more calmly. But he then got more animated again on the same theme: and insisted he did not deal with campaign expenses.
“I never saw Jacques Chirac look at a bill, never! I never saw Édouard Balladur [editor's note, the former prime minister whose failed presidential bid in 1995 Sarkozy was involved in] look at a bill, never! I find it hard to imagine Mr Hollande in his office with Mr [Michel] Sapin [editor's note, Hollande's future finance minister] looking at a bill! Sorry madame president, “ he added, calming down again for a moment.
“I have said that the political responsibilities are mine. Beyond that I usually delegate a lot. I get home far too late, I don't have time to know who the service provider is, I've people who deal with that for me,” he said. At the time, Nicolas Sarkozy insisted, he knew neither Bygmalion nor its events subsidiary Event & Cie. They were companies run by people close to Copé, he pointed out.
Nicolas Sarkozy got more and more annoyed as he gave evidence. “I know that I am responsible! After my campaign accounts were rejected I had to pay 363,000 euros from my own pocket and get back into politics, to carry out a Sarkathon and raise 12 million euros,” he said, referring to the fund-raising event carried out among party sympathisers to fill the financial hole left at the UMP party after the 2012 election.
He accepted that he was responsible politically and administratively. “But I can't be held responsible if the agent, treasurer or the accountants didn't do their job,” he said, excusing himself of responsibility for the campaign's financial problems. He insisted that he never had any intention of committing fraud and so he had committed no crime.
Nicolas Sarkozy was unable to explain why the number of big rallies had increased in 2012 despite warnings from the accountants. “I like small meetings, 1,000, 2,000 people, because you have contact with people,” he said, despite the evidence from that campaign to the contrary. He even insisted he had cancelled two meetings to limit spending.
The former president insisted that François Hollande and another candidate, the far-right Marine Le Pen, had similar and as many meetings as him. “Where is this campaign that ran away with itself? Where is this sumptuous campaign? Where is this campaign of solid gold?” he asked, his voice straining. The court did not seem convinced.
Nicolas Sarkozy insisted that at the time he was not aware of any fraud. “The false invoices, that's proven. The false conferences, that's proven. But was that money in my campaign? That's not proven. It's a mockery. If this money had been in my campaign you'd see it!” he thundered. He also attacked the rates charged by Bygmalion and its profit margins, and highlighted the links between its bosses, Bastien Millot and Guy Alvès, and Jean-François Copé.
The theory that there was a hidden fund at or misappropriation by Bygmalion has been rejected by the investigating judges. However, Nicolas Sarkozy was undeterred. “It's inconceivable that my campaign cost double that of 2007! This campaign did not cost what is being said!” he said.
The case is centred on the funding of the former president's failed bid to get re-elected at the 2012 presidential election. After the election the Sarkozy campaign accounts were initially rejected because of a relatively small overspend of 360,000 euros over the 22.5 million euro legal limit. But when the Bygmalion scandal broke in 2014, it soon emerged that the campaign had in fact spent nearly double that legal limit, largely on advertising and public meetings. Ultimately the judge-led investigation into the affair put the total campaign outlay at 42.8 million euros. Prosecutors claim that to hide this colossal overspend from auditors, campaign staff arranged for a friendly public relations firm, Bygmalion, and their events arm Event & Cie to use fake bills, and charge much of the expenditure to the UMP party for 'conferences' and other services rather than the campaign itself. As well as illegally hiding the campaign overspend, this practice also led to crippling debts on the part of the UMP.
In addition to Nicolas Sarkozy the accused include senior election campaign staff, UMP party officials, accountants, and executives at Bygmalion and Event & Cie. They face a variety of charges, including forgery, the use of false instruments, fraud, breach of trust, and receiving the proceeds of and complicity in the illegal funding of an election campaign. If convicted, some face jail terms of up to five years and fines of up to 375,000 euros. Sarkozy himself faces the lesser charge of the “illegal funding of an election campaign”. Prosecutors say that the former president – who in March was convicted of corruption and influence peddling in an unrelated case - knew that his campaign was massively overspent but that he ignored advice to keep expenditure within the legal limit. All deny the charges.
The case continues.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The original French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Michael Streeter