The Court of the Penal Economic and Financial Pole concluded the trial of defendants in the "University Services" corruption case late on Thursday in الجزائر. The court then adjourned the session, referring the matter for deliberation. Rulings in the high-profile case are expected to be announced on July 1st. The court adjourned the session and referred the case for deliberation to announce rulings on July 1st, marking a significant step in the legal proceedings.
Defense Arguments for Legality
The defense argued that the wheel of investment in Algeria must continue to move forward, according to statements made during the trial. Representing various defendants, the defense requested the release of private operators who they contended contributed to encouraging the national economy. This appeal was part of a broader argument emphasizing the importance of economic activity and the role of these individuals within it, asserting that their continued participation is vital for national development.
The defense also called for an end to prosecuting state employees, including cadres and members of evaluation and bid opening committees. They asserted that these individuals performed their duties strictly within the framework of existing laws and regulations. This argument aimed to differentiate between legitimate administrative actions and alleged corruption, suggesting that officials were merely following established protocols. The defense emphasized that these state employees, including cadres and members of evaluation and bid opening committees, performed their duties within the framework of laws and regulations, and therefore should not face prosecution for executing their responsibilities.
Specific arguments were presented by the defense for members of evaluation and bid opening committees from Oran, Mostaganem, Medea, and Djelfa. Their legal representatives detailed that the work of these committees involved three distinct stages: bid opening, technical evaluation, and financial evaluation. This breakdown was intended to demonstrate the structured and process-driven nature of their tasks, suggesting a lack of discretion for personal gain. The defense showed that each stage was governed by clear guidelines, leaving little room for arbitrary decisions or corrupt practices.
The defense questioned the basis for prosecuting individuals who applied regulations, particularly when the charges involved granting unjustified privileges. They noted a perceived contradiction in penalizing officials for actions taken in adherence to established rules. This line of argument aimed to challenge the prosecution's interpretation of the committees' decisions, asking why individuals who applied regulations were being prosecuted for granting unjustified privileges, if their actions were compliant with existing frameworks.
The defense pointed out that the tender specifications, which formed the basis of the evaluated bids, had been approved by a ministerial sectoral committee and the financial controller. This approval process, they argued, indicated that the fundamental terms of the tenders were vetted and authorized at higher levels, thereby legitimizing the framework within which the committees operated. The defense's collective stance was that the actions under scrutiny were procedural and aligned with official directives, rather than being acts of corruption. The fact that the tender specifications were approved by a ministerial sectoral committee and the financial controller provided a strong basis for the defense to argue that the committees were operating within a legitimate and pre-approved framework.
Specific Case Defenses
Nabil Ben Brahem, defense lawyer for the Director of University Services for Djelfa province, defendant "Z.W.", asserted that the case file "appears large but is empty." Ben Brahem specifically addressed a condition in Djelfa province's tender specifications for the fruits and vegetables supply contract, which required bidders to possess a refrigeration room. The investigating authority had described this condition as "impossible." However, the defense argued that the refrigeration room requirement was key to ensure timely delivery, particularly given the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the defense, "H.Q." was the sole supplier who met all the stipulated conditions, including the possession of a refrigeration room, for the contract. The defense lawyer noted that the investigating authority had described the condition of obtaining a refrigeration room in Djelfa province as an "impossible condition" for bidders. However, Ben Brahem countered that this refrigeration room condition was included in the tender specifications for the fruits and vegetables supply contract specifically to ensure timely delivery, a critical factor especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. He further stated that "H.Q." was the only supplier who met all the stipulated conditions, including having a refrigeration room, thereby fulfilling the tender requirements completely.
Jamila Kasimi, defense lawyer for defendant "H.N.", who served as Director of the university residence and a member of the bid opening and evaluation committee at the "Es-Sania" Directorate of University Services in Oran, presented arguments regarding the tender for red meat (calf and sheep) for Unit No. 01. Kasimi stated that eleven economic operators participated in this particular tender. The indictment against her client, "H.N.", was based on what Kasimi described as "three alleged weak charges," including an accusation concerning the disappearance of documents intended to exclude an economic operator. However, the defense noted that no economic operator had filed a complaint regarding the alleged disappearance of these documents. Jamila Kasimi, representing "H.N.", Director of the university residence and a member of the bid opening and evaluation committee at the "Es-Sania" Directorate of University Services in Oran, specifically defended her client concerning the tender for red meat (calf and sheep) for Unit No. 01. She noted that eleven economic operators participated in the red meat tender. Kasimi argued that the indictment against "H.N." was based on what she termed "three alleged weak charges," one of which involved the alleged disappearance of documents intended to exclude an economic operator. However, she pointed out that no economic operator had filed a complaint regarding this alleged disappearance of documents, casting doubt on the validity of the accusation.
Kasimi also refuted the charge of not updating the reference price for the red meat tender. She explained that the reference price had been established within the tender specifications, which were subsequently approved by the sectoral committee. The defense successfully refuted the charge of not updating the reference price, explaining that the reference price was set in the tender specifications, which had been approved by the sectoral committee, making any further update unnecessary within the tender's framework. Another point of contention was the exclusion of economic operator "M". The defense clarified that this exclusion was based on Article 20 of the tender specifications, which permits the application of Article 72 when a submitted price is deemed "too low." Furthermore, the Administrative Court of Oran upheld the legitimacy of this exclusion decision concerning economic operator "M", according to defense statements. An expert judicial report submitted as evidence in the case denied any embezzlement. The defense emphasized that the exclusion of economic operator "M" was not arbitrary but was based on Article 20 of the tender specifications, which allows for the application of Article 72 when the price is too low. This decision was further validated by the Administrative Court of Oran, which upheld the legitimacy of the exclusion. Crucially, an expert judicial report submitted as evidence in the case denied any embezzlement, directly challenging a key aspect of the prosecution's claims.
Operator and Report Testimonials
Boumediene Filali, defense lawyer for economic operator "H.Q.", stated his client has maintained active operations for over 30 years. According to Filali, "H.Q." has been awarded contracts with various public institutions consistently since 2005. The defense presented this information to highlight the operator's established history and experience in the sector, portraying "H.Q." as a reliable and long-standing contributor to the national economy.
Filali further argued that the indictment against his client was notably concise, spanning only four pages. He contended that this brevity indicated a fundamental lack of substantive evidence to support the accusations made. This argument sought to challenge the prosecution's case by questioning the depth and breadth of the evidence presented, suggesting that an indictment summarized in only four pages indicated a lack of substantial evidence.
A report from the General Inspectorate of Finance was also referenced by the defense. This report, according to Filali, was positive regarding "H.Q." and explicitly declared the client innocent of all charges brought forward in the case. The defense presented this report as a significant piece of exculpatory evidence, aiming to corroborate their claims of the client's innocence, as the General Inspectorate of Finance report was positive and declared the client innocent of all charges.
Additionally, the defense submitted a certificate of good performance for "H.Q." issued by the Djelfa Directorate of University Services. The certificate was dated June 17, 2026, which the defense used to show the operator's continued reliability and positive standing with public institutions. This certificate, dated well into the future, served to reinforce the defense's argument about "H.Q.'s" consistent exemplary service and reputation, further challenging the allegations of corruption.
