Close Menu
Market Data Newsletter
Tuesday, September 1
Global Free Speech

CPJ calls on Tunisia to release imprisoned journalists amid deadly heatwave

News RoomBy No Comments2 Mins Read1 Views
CPJ calls on Tunisia to release imprisoned journalists amid deadly heatwave

Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

New York, August 31, 2026—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on Tunisian authorities to immediately release journalists Zied el-Heni, Mourad Zghidi, and Borhen Bsaies, as reports of prisoner deaths amid an extreme heatwave raise grave concerns about life-threatening conditions in the country’s overcrowded prisons.

At least 10 prisoners have died in recent weeks, as temperatures across Tunisia approached 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) in some cities, including five prisoners who died in a single day in prisons in the greater Tunis area. Rights groups and prisoners’ families have reported severe overcrowding, water and electricity cuts, inadequate ventilation, and limited access to medical care.

“The deaths of 10 prisoners amid Tunisia’s severe heatwave make the continued imprisonment of journalists Zied el-Heni, Mourad Zghidi, and Borhen Bsaies even more alarming,” said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. “These journalists should never have been imprisoned for their journalism and practicing their right in free speech. Tunisian authorities must not compound that injustice by leaving them exposed to dangerous prison conditions. They must release the three journalists immediately.”

Zghidi and Bsaies have been imprisoned since May 2024. After completing eight-month sentences stemming from their commentary and social media posts, they were kept behind bars under a new financial investigation. In January 2026, both journalists were sentenced to three and a half years in prison on money laundering, tax, and other financial charges.

El-Heni is serving a one-year prison sentence under Article 86 of the Telecommunications Code, following his April 24 arrest over a social media post criticizing the prosecution of journalist Khalifa Guesmi, who was imprisoned for more than three years.

CPJ urges Tunisian authorities to:

·  Immediately release imprisoned journalists Zied el-Heni, Mourad Zghidi, and Borhen Bsaies.

·  Ensure humane prison conditions, including access to water, ventilation, and medical care.

·  Independently investigate the 10 recent deaths in custody.

CPJ emailed the office of the president requesting comment but did not receive any reply.

Read the full article here

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.

Share.

The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.

Related Articles

Global Free Speech

Guidance on public photography should be shared with everyone in the UK not just asylum seekers. Photo: Getty Images for Unsplash+ Asylum seekers in the UK are being misled by the Home Office over laws about photographing people in public places and are being threatened that their asylum claims might be refused and could be kicked out of the country. On 19 August, the Home Office issued a poster entitled “Do not photograph or film people in public” as part of a series of guidance over consequences of behaviour for those seeking asylum. The poster is part of a nine-page booklet that aims to help asylum seekers understand what is expected of them when living in the UK and covers issues such as sexual consent and domestic abuse. The release of the booklet is controversial because the guidance it contains applies to everyone in the UK and not just asylum seekers. Its publication now could be seen as a politically motivated sop to those who want to crack down on all immigration, even though Britain is legally bound to admit genuine refugees. In the introduction, the Home Office says, “We understand that coming to a new country can be difficult, and that laws and customs here may be different from your home country.” The poster says, “In the UK, you should not take pictures or videos of someone without their permission. This includes taking pictures or videos in public spaces, like streets of parks, or in private spaces, like at home.” However, the poster is misleading. There is a common misconception that photographing people in public places without their consent is illegal. It is not. There are some situations where there are restrictions, for example where photography is restricted by law, such as outside military facilities where photography is prohibited because of national security concerns. Photography is also not permitted where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in the changing room of a clothes shop. Many commercial, privately owned spaces also have rules regarding photography. Sheffield’s Meadowhall shopping centre, for example, says filming and photography is not permitted unless authorised. Where there are no restrictions, consent is not required by law but many legitimate street photographers follow codes of conduct where they might seek consent. The Royal Society of Photographers, for example, recommends that “particular care should be taken when photographing children and vulnerable people, with consideration given to consent, safeguarding, privacy and the potential impact of making or sharing an image”. It adds, “Photographers should also consider how images of identifiable people are subsequently used, especially where their use could imply endorsement or raise concerns about commercial exploitation.” Repeated photography of a person without their consent could be illegal if it crosses into harassing behaviour that is likely to cause alarm or intimidation. This is banned by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Photographers must also not share pictures of a sexual nature, for example upskirting, without the subject’s permission. This is banned under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. When asked about the poster, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We expect everyone who comes to the UK to abide by our laws. If they do not, they will face consequences, including the refusal of their asylum claim and removal from the UK.” They added, “These resources were produced for asylum seekers so there can be no possible misunderstanding of what we expect. The poster is designed to communicate two separate messages: Firstly, that individuals should not take photographs of others without their consent. Secondly, that sharing photographs or videos of a sexual nature without someone’s permission is a serious criminal offence.” There are subtle indications that the Home Office knew that what it was publishing was incorrect. Looking at the poster closely, it appears that the word “should” has been added later, suggesting that it previously said “must” – the font used is subtly different (see below). The information contained in a new Home Office poster is incorrect The Home Office did not respond to our request for comment when we asked about this. The spokeperson said of the poster, “It does not suggest that you can go to prison for taking someone’s photo in public.” There are nuances of English grammar at play here. One person who commented on the BPPA’s statement on Instagram said, “It doesn’t say there’s a legal requirement not to? It says you shouldn’t which to be quite frank is good, if simplified, advice for asylum speakers for whom English is not a first language.” However the heading of the poster is unequivocal. It says, “Do not”. Anyone, even those using English as a second language, would be unlikely to misconstrue that. The original wording still appears to be on the Home Office website. In the booklet’s introduction it says: “In the UK, we respect people’s privacy. This means you must not take photographs or videos of someone without their consent.” (emphasis mine). Photographers and photojournalists and their unions have been quick to call on the Home Office to clarify the poster. The British Press Photographers’ Association (BPPA) has commented on the document. It said, “Recently issued Home Office guidance that states permission is needed to photograph people in public is incorrect and harmful. There is no legal requirement to seek permission when photographing in public. The BPPA hopes an immediate correction will be issued.” Séamus Dooley, NUJ assistant general secretary, said: “This communication not only runs the risk of misleading asylum seekers, it could also have serious consequences for our members – particularly photographers and videographers who regularly carry out their work in public places. It also spreads public confusion that could serve to inhibit public interest journalism. Press photographers and other lens-based journalists perform a legitimate and important function in reporting and recording events in public spaces. “The union is very concerned that the spread of inaccurate information around the right to photograph and film people in public without permission could expose our members to increased hostility and harassment as well as wrongful accusations of criminality and unjustifiable stops by the police. This would undermine journalists’ right to report and the public’s right to know. READ MORE

Global Free Speech

London’s Africa Centre faces closure Earlier this month, I was saddened to learn that The Africa Centre in London may once again be shutting its doors. It won’t be the first time the centre has had to close – but it may be the last time, although the chief executive is still hopeful he can raise the millions of pounds needed to save it. There’s no point dwelling on the reasons, speculative or factual, behind its current crisis. I did though, looking through a list of its recent events, feel a pang of guilt. I could have done more to support The Africa Centre – turning up, talking to people about it, taking cognisance of the real value it has added over the years to London’s political and social life. When the Africa Centre was founded in 1961, its primary objective was to “educate about, connect to and [advocate] for Africa and its diaspora through arts, innovation, culture, thought leadership and education”. In 1964 it found a home in London’s Covent Garden – the Catholic church purchased an old tomato warehouse on King Street and gifted it “to the people of Africa in perpetuity”. When my parents emigrated to the United Kingdom in the mid-1960s, The Africa Centre was one of the very few places where people like them could find space to negotiate the cultural and social differences between them and the unfamiliar wider world. This process of cultural pollination process worked both ways, mind. Intellectuals, activists and dissidents from across the continent spoke at King Street about the political challenges faced by post-colonial African countries, educating curious audiences who wanted to learn more about a part of the world that for many was at best a construct of the imagination, if even that. For two days last June, the London Archives presented to the public a cross-section of documents, photographs and ephemera from its Africa Centre Collection. The archives were a revealing and at times startling record of political and social openness and curiosity. On one table, a poster from 1968 announced a talk about The Future of the Portuguese Territories – long before Angola and Mozambique became proxy battlegrounds for the Cold War between the Soviets and the West. From 1970, an invitation to a talk by Mrs Lydia Osiyemi, “sociology student and mother”, about The African mother and child in Britain. Judging from the poster (left), I fancy that Mrs Osiyemi’s talk was proposing African solutions to a dilemma that remains very real today – to London’s new arrivals and veterans alike. And then, from the early 1990s, in the centre’s guest book (below right), a tribute from a vanguard of democracy. “I pay tribute to those who founded this institution, and those who run it,” the scrawly script read. “This is …  a major cultural shop-window for Africa of which every African should be proud.” The author: “M.K.O. Abiola of Africa.” The Nigeria I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, after my parents moved back there for a while, was defined by the ever-present cloud of military dictatorship. I can say that now, in hindsight; it’s strange how one normalises the abnormal when we have nothing to compare it against. When Abiola, a business magnate and politician, ran for president in Nigeria in 1993 for a short while it seemed that the country would escape its history of ethnic strife. But then the military snatched victory from him and imprisoned him, extending their malign grip on the country for another half decade. The BAFTA-winning My Father’s Son is set against the backdrop of that very period. A generation before this, the Africa at the Pictures film festival curated by the centre had offered London similar context to political and social concerns across the continent. Abiola’s entry reminded me that it was in the London, on King Street, that I first began to think more clearly about the right to free expression and what happens when this is curtailed. When Chinua Achebe’s Anthills of the Savannah, an acerbic observation on life under military dictatorship in a fictional west African country, was shortlisted for the Booker in 1987 it couldn’t be bought in Nigeria. I got hold of my copy in London – in the Africa Centre’s cramped and musty bookshop, stuffed with books on and from the continent. It wasn’t all high-minded intellectualism on King Street. The Africa Centre was home to one of the few restaurants in London featuring cuisine from here and there across the continent – Mauritian lamb curry, Algerian couscous, fried plantain and boiled yam. Cost? Dishes were, according to a caption, “between 20p and £3”. Happy days. (An early menu is shown below left). In 2012, the Africa Centre left Covent Garden. Maintaining the Grade II-listed building proved too expensive, some said. Perhaps more to the point, it was no longer a good fit for the commercialised ambience that had sprung up around Covent Garden. The historic building on King Street was sold, and with the support of the Mayor of London and the Arts Council, the Centre relocated itself across the river in 2022, to new premises in Southwark. The last time I was there, in the summer of 2023, was to see a fascinating multi-floor exhibition about Nigeria’s Fuji music. Once again, I was surprised and delighted to learn in the Africa Centre something new about my childhood home, so very far away from it. London of the 1980s and 1990s was nothing like the crucible of cultures that it is today. While migrant communities were not quite silenced, they certainly did not have the right to a voice in the public sphere such as they do today. We complain, correctly, about febrile attempts to exclude inconvenient minority voices from the general discourse today. But we don’t, unfortunately, acknowledge enough the real contribution that physical community spaces, big and small, have made over the years to give London the cultural texture and viscera that makes the challenging and contradictory but still very charming city that it is. I’m going to miss the Africa Centre when it’s gone, and places like it, that helped shaped a city where the right to free expression is still, on the whole, seen to be a good thing. READ MORE

Global Free Speech

Photo: Sergio Kian/UnSplash There are many things to adore about China. The high-speed rail networks are great. Zooming from Shanghai international airport into the city at 431 km per hour is an extraordinary experience. The food is varied and delicious. While the country has a problem with sexual and domestic abuse within relationships, the streets are very safe. I miss being able to walk home at any hour down a dark lane without clutching keys in my hands. I could go on and many in fact do. A current trend – Chinamaxxing – sees young people from the West in thrall to China and taking to social media to say as such. One choice phrase is: “You met me at a very Chinese time in my life.” Chinamaxxers often overlook or downplay the negative parts of the country. The retort will typically be: “our countries aren’t perfect”. And they’re right. Europe, the UK and the USA do have problems, ones we often point out at Index. Still, some perspective is needed. We’re not talking about sporadic violations; we’re talking about systematic abuse at scale. I was bemused by an article in The New World this week interviewing a Chinamaxxer who had to change his VPN three times just to do the interview and muffle his voice when speaking about Tibet and Tiananmen Square. In the UK, a VPN is still very much a choice, not a requirement, and speaking quietly is usually done out of respect to neighbours and noise pollution, rather than from a fear you’re being spied on and could receive a knock at the door. I wonder too what the Chinamaxxers make of the fact that Gao Zhen, a prominent Chinese-American artist known for provocative sculptures of Mao Zedong, was sentenced Tuesday to three years in prison for slandering China’s “heroes and martyrs”? I wonder what they’d make of Guo Degang, lauded for his comedy on the national stage, now being investigated for allegedly improvising parts of a patriotic song? How would they respond to a new report from the International Campaign for Tibet, which showed how Beijing is tightening its grip on the region further, the recently passed and euphemistically labelled Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress Law helping here? In Hong Kong, activist Chow Hang-tung was convicted simply for organising Tiananmen vigils. A letter from her published by us spoke of the subtle torture of handcuffs designed to constrict and contort the body. Thoughts on this? And what about the woman who was arrested outside the same courtroom for wearing a t-shirt with Japanese characters, which were apparently deemed seditious? These are just some examples from the last week. This isn’t a case of whataboutery. I’m not asking Chinamaxxers to comment on the rights record of Venezuela or Belarus. I’m not even asking them to remark on all these individual cases. But for those who call themselves spiritually Chinese, to bypass the bad and the ugly in favour of just the good is either wilful ignorance, self-censorship or both. READ MORE

Add A Comment
Leave A Reply