FORMER French President Nicolas Sarkozy is facing a potential seven-year prison sentence as financial prosecutors accuse him of illegally financing his 2007 election campaign with funds allegedly supplied by the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
As reported by The Associated Press (AP), the high-profile trial, which began in January and is set to run through April 8, has resurfaced long-standing suspicions about back-channel dealings between France and Libya during a period when Gaddafi was attempting to rebrand his pariah regime.
Prosecutors claim that Sarkozy, who served as president from 2007 to 2012, may have compromised French diplomatic integrity—and the memory of victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism—in exchange for political funding.
Victims’ families voice outrage in court
The most emotionally charged moments of the trial have come from relatives of victims of terrorist attacks tied to Libya, particularly the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772, which killed 170 people, including 54 French nationals.
Nicoletta Diasio, whose father died in the attack, told the court she feared her loved one’s death had become a political bargaining chip.
‘What did they do with our dead?’ she asked. ‘Were their memories used for bartering?’
Both the UTA flight bombing and the 1988 Lockerbie bombing were attributed to Libya, which only accepted responsibility in 2003. Yet the trial raises new questions about whether Sarkozy’s administration had informal agreements with Libyan officials, including intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senoussi, who had an international arrest warrant issued against him by France.
Libyan cash and campaign allegations
During the trial, financial prosecutors argued that Sarkozy received millions in cash from Libyan authorities in exchange for future business and political favours.
Gaddafi’s son, Seif al-Islam, told French outlet RFI that Sarkozy was given $5 million in two cash instalments to support his 2007 presidential bid. In return, Libya allegedly expected France to drop legal cases, such as the international arrest warrant against al-Senoussi, and facilitate major commercial deals.
Sarkozy, now 70, has strongly denied all allegations, declaring in court:
‘You’ll never find one Libyan euro or cent in my campaign. There’s no corruption because there was no corruption.’
Gaddafi visit and the Bulgarian medics deal
The trial also revisits Sarkozy’s controversial decision to host Gaddafi in Paris in 2007 with full honours, including allowing the Libyan leader to pitch a Bedouin tent near the Élysée Palace. Many in France saw the visit as overly deferential to a dictator.
Sarkozy has defended the move, stating it came after Libya released five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor accused of infecting children with HIV—a release partially brokered by Sarkozy’s then-wife, Cecilia, and EU diplomats.
‘If you didn’t talk to Gaddafi, you wouldn’t have freed the nurses,’ Sarkozy said during his testimony, describing their release as ‘a source of pride.’
Power politics and a sudden turn
The former president’s defenders point to his later stance against Gaddafi during the 2011 Arab Spring, when Sarkozy became the first Western leader to recognise Libya’s National Transitional Council and call for Gadhafi’s ousting.
He told the court that France’s military intervention, which played a role in Gaddafi’s eventual death, was proof that he had no lasting loyalty to the Libyan regime.
‘Gadhafi was the only dictator who sent aircraft to bomb his own people,’ Sarkozy stated. ‘He promised rivers of blood.’
Despite that, the prosecution argues that Sarkozy’s earlier actions suggest a covert understanding with the Libyan leadership that compromised France’s justice system and international standing.
Verdict pending in politically charged case
Sarkozy’s legal team is scheduled to present its defence on April 8, with the verdict to follow at a later, undisclosed date. If convicted, Sarkozy would be the first modern French president to face prison for corruption tied to foreign financing.
The trial continues to grip France, not only for its political implications, but also for the emotional weight carried by the victims’ families who fear that justice was traded for diplomacy nearly two decades ago.
