The Court of the Economic and Financial Penal Pole of Sidi M'hamed is scheduled to issue judgments on June 23 in the 'privatization' file, a high-profile case involving several prominent figures. Among those implicated are businessman Youssef Metiji, the former CEO of 'Tiaret' Mills, ط. ع, the former Minister of Contributions and Investment Promotion, Hamid Tammar, and the former CEO of the Management and Contributions Company, س. ر. Mr. Metiji, who owns the LLC 'Ekhlas' company specializing in mills and food products, is a central figure among the individuals implicated in the ongoing legal proceedings. The file examines intricate aspects related to the privatization process, with specific details of the allegations yet to be fully disclosed in the upcoming pronouncements. The court's anticipated decision will address the roles and responsibilities of the various parties involved, including the former CEO of 'Tiaret' Mills, identified only by the initials ط. ع, and the former CEO of the Management and Contributions Company, س. ر, within the contentious context of the privatization. The proceedings have drawn considerable attention due to the involvement of high-ranking officials and significant economic interests.
Defense Challenges Legal Basis
The defense team for businessman Youssef Metiji contended that the prosecution's case lacks clear legal grounds for charges such as failure to declare assets or illicit enrichment. This argument was presented as a fundamental part of the defense's strategy to challenge the foundational elements of the accusations against Mr. Metiji in the ongoing 'privatization' file. The legal team asserted that the charges are not supported by explicit legal provisions, thereby questioning the very validity and legitimacy of the entire proceedings from a legal standpoint. The defense emphasized that for such serious charges to stand, they must be firmly rooted in specific statutes and regulations, which they argue is not the case here.
Mr. Metiji's defense further stated that the case relies on "vague interpretations" rather than concrete evidence. This position shows the defense's view that the allegations levied against their client are abstract and lack the specific factual backing typically required in strong legal proceedings. The focus on interpretation over tangible evidence suggests a perceived weakness in the prosecution's evidentiary foundation, implying that the accusations are built on conjecture rather than verifiable facts. The defense noted that a strong legal case demands solid, undeniable evidence, which they claim is absent in this instance.
The defense also maintained that the case does not involve a public contract. This point is significant because the presence or absence of a public contract can fundamentally alter the legal framework and applicable regulations governing transactions, particularly in cases related to privatization. By asserting the absence of a public contract, the defense aimed to differentiate the nature of the transactions under scrutiny from those typically subject to more stringent public procurement laws and oversight. This distinction is key for determining the appropriate legal standards and potential liabilities.
Lawyer Bahia Khoudar, representing Youssef Metiji, stated that the case originated from an anonymous letter, which she argued contradicts established legal norms and presidential directives. "The case began with an anonymous letter, and this is contrary to the law and presidential instructions, as it was transformed from a mere initial element for investigation into the sole basis for building the accusation and claiming undue advantages," Khoudar said. This argument notes a significant procedural challenge to the legitimacy of how the investigation commenced and progressed, suggesting that the entire process may be flawed from its inception. The defense posits that relying solely on an anonymous tip to build a case of this magnitude undermines legal principles.
Additionally, the defense claimed that Youssef Metiji's personal income exceeds 200 billion Algerian Dinars, positioning these funds as entirely separate from the finances of his company, Ekhlas. This assertion aimed to clarify the source and magnitude of Mr. Metiji's personal wealth, potentially to counter any implications of illicit enrichment by demonstrating substantial legitimate income independent of the corporate entities involved in the case. By providing this financial context, the defense sought to dismantle any presumption that his wealth was derived from illicit activities connected to the privatization process.
The defense team also asserted that the Ekhlas company, owned by Mr. Metiji, had committed no violations, fraudulent acts, tax evasion, or unpaid debts. This statement served to portray the company as operating in full compliance with legal and financial regulations throughout its operations. The defense aimed to counter any suggestions of impropriety regarding the company's operations, thereby reinforcing the argument that the accusations against Mr. Metiji and his business lack substantive basis. This full denial of corporate wrongdoing strengthens the overall defense strategy.
Arguments for Former CEOs
The defense for the former CEO of the Management and Contributions Company, identified as س. ر, argued that their client was merely implementing decisions originating from a sovereign body. The legal team asserted that س. ر's role was confined to preparing a final report after evaluating various offers, providing only a summary and an opinion. This limited role, according to the defense, demonstrates that س. ر did not possess the ultimate decision-making authority in the privatization process. The defense also noted that س. ر ensured the 'Ekhlas' company fulfilled its financial obligations, maintained employment levels, and actively promoted investment, indicating his diligent oversight of the process. The defense contended that the facts presented in the current case had previously been adjudicated by the Tiaret Court, where س. ر had been granted a dismissal of proceedings, suggesting a form of double jeopardy for the same set of facts. This prior legal resolution, they argue, should preclude further prosecution on these grounds.
The defense for the former CEO of 'Tiaret' Mills, ط. ع, maintained that their client lacked the authority to intervene in privatization decisions. "My client is being tried today without any evidence. On the contrary, he does not have the authority or decisions to intervene in the privatization file, or to transfer state property to any party," ط. ع's defense stated, firmly disavowing any direct involvement in the core privatization decisions. They added that ط. ع's actions were limited to implementing a resolution issued by the State Contributions Council, positioning him as an executor rather than a decision-maker. "What he did was merely implement the resolution issued by the State Contributions Council," the defense emphasized, showing his compliance with directives from a higher authority. The defense further noted that the privatization of three mills in Tiaret occurred in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 2001-04, providing a legal framework for his actions. "It is strange that today we are discussing a decision issued by a sovereign administrative body, which ruled on the legality of a resolution with the force of res judicata, as the transfer of three mills in Tiaret, which belonged to the Riyad group, was carried out in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 2001-04 dated August 20, 2001, concerning the privatization of all national economic institutions, which stipulated in Article 22 its conditions, and this was by assigning the Minister responsible for State Contributions," the defense argued, pointing to the established legal basis for the privatization. They pointed out that ط. ع had previously faced prosecution for these same facts before the Tissemsilt Court, which issued an order of non-prosecution in 2009, a decision that was subsequently upheld. "I do not know why my client is being prosecuted today before the Economic and Financial Pole Court for the same facts, and on this basis, I request the court to acquit him of all charges against him," the defense concluded, citing the principle of non-bis-in-idem.
Context and Procedural Arguments
The 'privatization' file implicates former Minister of Contributions and Investment Promotion, Hamid Tammar, alongside the former CEO of the Management and Contributions Company, identified as س. ر. Defense lawyers contended that the legal classification of the ongoing case is inaccurate, asserting it pertains to a privatization process rather than a public contract. This distinction is central to their argument regarding the applicable legal framework, as the regulations and liabilities differ significantly between the two. The defense maintains that a misclassification could lead to the application of inappropriate legal standards.
For Youssef Metiji, his defense team presented a detailed account of his financial background. They stated that his father gifted him 20% of the company's shares when Mr. Metiji was merely three years old, establishing an early and legitimate basis for his involvement in the business. The defense also presented several documents, dating from 1970, 1974, 1975, and 1985, to substantiate his father's assets and the subsequent transfers made to Mr. Metiji. These documents were presented as strong evidence of the legitimate origins of his wealth and his long-standing connection to the family business, aiming to dispel any notions of illicit acquisition.
Mr. Metiji's defense noted that his company, Ekhlas, had diligently adhered to the resolution issued by the State Contributions Council. The defense emphasized that Ekhlas had made substantial investments totaling over 79 billion Algerian Dinars, demonstrating its commitment to economic development and growth. Critically, the company also maintained employment levels, thereby safeguarding jobs, and settled all outstanding debts, showcasing its financial responsibility and compliance with obligations. These points were presented to counter any allegations of financial impropriety or failure to meet commitments during the privatization process, with the defense aiming to demonstrate Ekhlas's compliance and positive economic contributions to the national economy. The defense showed that these actions were in full alignment with the terms set forth by the State Contributions Council, further validating the company's conduct.
