Tunisians were stunned by the information released by the National Initiative for Uncovering the Truth about the Political Assassinations in Tunisia (NIUTPAT) on October 2, when the initiative alleged involvement of security officers and leaders of the ruling Ennahda Movement in the assassination of political opponents Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi. Tayeb Oqaili is a NIUTPAT member.

Tunisians were stunned by the information released by the National Initiative for Uncovering the Truth about the Political Assassinations in Tunisia (NIUTPAT) on October 2, when the initiative alleged involvement of security officers and leaders of the ruling Ennahda Movement in the assassination of political opponents Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi. Tayeb Oqaili is a NIUTPAT member.

Mr. Oqaili, do you believe the files and documents presented by NIUTPAT are sufficient in uncovering the truth about assassinations in Tunisia?

They could become sufficient when the picture has been completed. However, presenting these documents and linking them to each other has provided an overview of the parties responsible for the assassinations, as well as those who accommodated them and offered them training. They have also revealed the nature of the relationship between these parties and the ruling party.

Tunisians have already reached a number of conclusions, and we have now proven them with documents issued by an official body; namely, the Ministry of Interior, which validated them. We view the recently opened investigations as an indication of negligence.

We may say that the full picture is not yet clear, but the main outline of the terrorist operations, both in terms of planning and implementation, is obvious.

Have your documents revealed any complicity by some security chiefs and prominent political figures?

We have now and again said that party loyalty-based appointments affect security performance. Today, these are no longer mere words; we now have documents proving that. Ennahda has appointed directors to serve a specific group rather than the country’s security. The documents they received from the CIA were unheeded. They knew that Salafists were tracking Brahmi, but they failed to protect him. This is negligence and inefficiency.

Ennahda’s Legal Office has decided to sue you for the statements and documents you submitted.

I have not been officially notified about that. And I generally view that as an attempt to evade answering the questions and documents we presented at the press conference. Some seek to turn the investigation into mere trivialities and unimportant details, while the facts are there in the documents.

Does the relationship between Ennahda and Ansar al-Sharia require proof? Similarly, does the relationship between Ennahda and Libyan Abdelhakim Belhadj need any evidence, while we all have seen how they have transformed him into a hero.

Why, in your opinion, have the statements made by most of the Ennahda leaders been severe and tense?

Even the statements made by the moderate Ennahda elements were tense. There is a genuine disorder suggesting that the wrong and ill-considered appointments made by Ennahda have contributed one way or another to the assassinations, even in terms of negligence.

On account of the document leaks, two security officers and two officials of the Ministry of Interior are now being interrogated. How do you view this action?

Frankly speaking, I do not know and have never met the security men who leaked the documents. I however quote the secretary general of the Tunisian General Labour Union who said: “God bless their efforts because they released the documents.” With regards to the trial, I have no comment.

Belhadj denied having any relationship with Ansar al-Sharia and refuted the information you disclosed to the public opinion, expressing his intention to sue you. How do you reply?

I have listened to his remarks. The intended prosecution is a mere detail, and if he wants to sue me, so be it. He claimed that the document was false, although it was authenticated by the Ministry of Interior. I do not honestly know what he will say. I have also stated that he has connections to Ennahda, and that he fought with the Libyan groups. That is what the documents say, so he should respond to them.

You have said you will later accuse former Interior Minister Ali Laarayedh and all those whose names will be disclosed by the investigation. What are the charges you intend to level against them?

There are three lawsuits already filed against Ali Laarayedh: the first is by the deputies who have withdrawn from the National Constituent Assembly, the second is by the family of Brahmi, and the third is by me and Basma Khalafaoui, the late Chokri Belaid’s widow. These lawsuits are all against Laarayedh and other officials believed to have been negligent in performing their duties.

Do you expect any changes in the case of Belaid and Brahmi after the information you have disclosed about them?

Certainly. The documents and information we have submitted to the two investigating magistrates dealing with the file of the two martyrs will change the course of the investigation and will certainly lead to new developments.

What about the lawsuit you intend to file in France against Belaid’s assassin?

I was planning to fly to France this week to file a suit against Boubakr Hakim since he holds dual citizenship – Tunisian and French – but I postponed it; perhaps until this weekend because the court summoned me. Last Monday, I appeared before the investigating magistrate at the Court of First Instance to provide the information I had.

The magistrate treated me positively and respectfully and the hearing lasted more than two hours. I respect the magistrate very much because he did not permit public prosecution to be present. The file is difficult and thorny.

You have recently faced several defaming campaigns. How do you deal with them, and what about the threats against you?

I will not respond to the defamation campaigns and the descriptions used against me. As far as the threats are concerned, security protection has been provided to me. I am going to sue the adviser to the minister of religious affairs and the officials supervising Ennahda’s Facebook page because they have branded me as a ‘traitor’ and deemed my killing lawful, this being their principle of shedding another persons’ blood. I will not remain silent and will carry on with my efforts to uncover the truth.

Has the NIUTPAT come under pressure?

Not directly. Before the press conference, however, we got indirect pressure in the form of advice, like: “The country is going through sensitive times and such statements could lead to a conflict and disrupt dialogue.”

We had the option to back away, but our quest for the truth is our ultimate goal. Therefore, we opted to tell the truth as it is and we did it giving no importance to the political aspect because political differences are not our concern.