The weaponization of law: judicial activism and ‘lawfare’

By Isabella Joseph

From the moment he took office in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy found himself to be the subject of palpable public dislike. A hatred so irrational, in fact, that those who heard his policies without his name attached to them, supported them. This public aversion to Sarkozy’s personality soon translated into political sabotage. French voters delivered a definitive, almost personal, act of democratic spite; the electoral outcome was a testament to voter anger that saw the French public elect François Hollande, a socialist, purely with the intention of ensuring Sarkozy’s immediate departure from office. With hatred so strong, is it simply a coincidence that the former president has been found guilty of ‘criminal conspiracy’? Or is France a reflection of a dangerous trend emerging in Western democracies: a justice system that is not used to impose the law impartially but one that serves the political interests of those in power?

After years of investigation and millions spent to pin down the former President for seeking Libyan funds to finance his 2007 presidential campaign, the Parisian court delivered its verdict: guilty of a pact that, by their own admission, never materialized. 

Despite this, the judges managed to convict the former president of a ‘thought crime’, where he has been accused of having sought money, however, the court cleared him of receiving or spending it. This legal loophole, designed to sanction the mere preparation of a crime, is precisely what makes the French justice system so wonderfully open to interpretation. It seems the judiciary has discovered a brand-new weapon: prosecuting the former leader not for what he did, but for what he thought he might do. Sarkozy’s case is a modern example of how the notion of ‘transparency’ is merely a political weapon. The ideal is less a moral requirement and more a goldmine used for and by political elites who use it to terminate their adversaries. The court ruled Sarkozy must report to prison immediately (exécution provisoire), regardless of his appeal, sentencing him to five years in La Santé Prison in southern Paris, making him the first former leader of modern France to be jailed. Given the ‘thin’ nature of evidence, the gravity of the punishment drew widespread disbelief. 

From the looks of it, it seems the main goal of the French judiciary is not to uphold the law for what it is but to use it as a pawn in the grand scheme of corruption and power. 

Amidst the chaos, Sarkozy can take comfort in the fact that he isn’t alone — his ideological successor, Marine Le Pen, stands right beside him in the confrontation of legal disqualification. Le Pen, the French far-right leading candidate for the 2027 presidency, was found guilty of embezzlement of EU funds and, considering the entirety of European politics, one could say that this hardly justifies a five-year ban from holding office with the penalty taking immediate effect before her appeal. This penalty strategically prevents her from running in the 2027 presidential election. From the looks of it, it seems the main goal of the French judiciary is not to uphold the law for what it is but to use it as a pawn in the grand scheme of corruption and power. 

The parallel is undeniable.

In the highly polarized political climate, the public has been forced to choose: is this the noble rule of law warning political leaders to clean up their act, or merely the tyranny of judges shouldering the dirty work an unscrupulous venture for power?

High-profile cases like this, that end in the immediate eradication of an opposition figure, have fuelled the negative connotations associated with politics today. This is what political strategy has come to: if you want to eliminate your political rivals, forget the business of a fair election, simply encourage a climate of intense public hatred and trust your judiciary to deliver a verdict that is based purely on convenient assumptions rather than facts. 

France often takes pride in calling itself a republic — for this to continue, either the operation of the French judiciary must change, or we must reconsider what it means to be a republic nation. 

Image: Heute.at