Haftar’s Regime Uses Executions in Eastern Libya as ‘Political Punishment’: How?

Libya’s political and human rights landscape has been gripped by outrage after authorities in the country’s east, controlled by Khalifa Haftar, announced the execution of a number of Libyan citizens.

On August 23, 2026, the office of the military prosecutor in eastern Libya said that 10 people convicted in cases it described as involving “terrorist crimes” had been executed by firing squad.

The office said the men had been charged with “belonging to banned terrorist organizations and carrying out assassinations targeting military personnel and civilians.”

It added that the executions were carried out under rulings issued by the High Military Court after deliberations that had stretched on for years, without providing details about the stages of the legal proceedings or the nature of the judicial process that preceded the executions.

Political and Human Rights Condemnation

In its first official response to the announcement, the High Council of State of Libya (HCSL) expressed deep concern over the executions, raising questions about the conditions of detention and trial, the guarantees afforded to the defense, and the procedures followed before the sentences were carried out.

In a statement issued on August 23, the HCSL said that combating terrorism and crime was an “undisputed national duty,” but stressed that counterterrorism could not serve as a substitute for the judiciary and that punishments could only be carried out through a competent judicial authority and procedures that meet the legal safeguards guaranteed by law.

The HCSL said its position was not about defending the accused or absolving those convicted. Rather, it concerned the principle of the Libyan state’s right to punish, the judiciary’s right to exercise its jurisdiction, and every citizen’s right to a fair trial, regardless of the charges against them.

It called for the authorities to officially disclose the names of those executed, the case numbers, and the judicial bodies that issued the rulings, as well as details of the legal proceedings and appeals that had been exhausted.

The HCSL also demanded that competent national judicial authorities be allowed to examine whether the procedures preceding the executions complied with legal safeguards, particularly the rights of the defense and the requirements of a fair trial.

It further called for the protection of all prisoners and detainees facing similar cases and urged authorities not to carry out any further executions until it had been fully established that all required judicial and legal procedures had been followed.

The HCSL also urged the United Nations Support Mission in Libya and relevant international bodies to monitor detention and trial procedures and fair trial guarantees in Libya, in a move it said was essential to upholding the rule of law and strengthening confidence in state institutions.

Human rights groups have also reacted with fierce condemnation to the executions. Solidarity for Human Rights denounced the military apparatus affiliated with Khalifa Haftar’s decision to execute 10 detainees in Benghazi.

In a statement issued on August 23, it said media platforms loyal to Haftar had confirmed that the men were executed by firing squad. It said the identities of three civilians held at Kuwayfiyah Prison and six civilians detained at Gernada Prison had been established, while the identity of the 10th victim remained unknown.

According to the organization, the three victims in Benghazi were Quran teachers who were abducted in 2014, during the early days of what was known as Operation Dignity. The six others, held in Gernada, were residents of Derna who had taken part in fighting ISIS and contributed to the liberation of the city in 2016. They were civilians known for opposing extremism, the group said, rather than “terrorists,” as Haftar-affiliated media had claimed.

Solidarity for Human Rights said the executions followed secret, unlawful, and unconstitutional trials before “the military court” in Benghazi, an institution it argued had no legal standing under Libyan legislation and where even the most basic guarantees of a fair trial were absent.

It pointed to a landmark constitutional ruling issued by Libya’s Supreme Court on November 2, 2025, which found that trying civilians before military courts amounted to an exceptional form of justice prohibited by the constitution. The court also ruled that assigning terrorism cases to military courts violated the right to be tried before a natural judge and the principle of equality before the law.

On that basis, the organization argued that the executions amounted to extrajudicial killings, war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, and the intentional killing of civilians under the Rome Statute, as well as a flagrant violation of the right to life and fair trial guarantees.

The group also warned that further executions could be imminent, saying that around 90 civilians were believed to be at risk of execution by Haftar’s military apparatus.

Libya Crimes Watch also condemned the executions, saying they had taken place amid violations of fundamental fair trial guarantees that the group had documented in military courts operating in areas controlled by Haftar’s forces.

In a statement issued on August 24, it criticized the military prosecutor’s office for failing to disclose sufficient details about the cases, including whether all available avenues of appeal had been exhausted and whether those sentenced had been given the opportunity to seek a pardon or commutation of their sentences. It said the failure to meet fair trial standards amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of life and a violation of the right to life.

Libya Crimes Watch said it had previously documented serious violations of basic fair trial guarantees in military courts in eastern Libya, including the trial of civilians before military tribunals, denying defendants access to their lawyers, preventing lawyers from reviewing case files and presenting defenses, threatening and obstructing attorneys, holding closed hearings without legal justification, and relying on confessions allegedly extracted under torture.

The organization held the General Command of the Libyan Arab Armed Forces and the military judicial authorities in eastern Libya responsible for ensuring the legality of the procedures that preceded the executions and their compliance with Libya’s international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also said they bore responsibility for any violations found to have occurred during detention, investigation, trial, or the implementation of the sentences.

It called on authorities in eastern Libya to halt all executions while serious violations of fundamental fair trial guarantees persist.

At the United Nations level, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said it was shocked by the execution of several people in eastern Libya following trials before what it described as a “flawed” military court.

In a statement posted on Facebook on August 26, it described the executions as a serious setback and called for them to stop. It said the latest judicial executions were the first of their kind in Libya in 15 years, warning that the death penalty was incompatible with the right to life and increased the risk of executing innocent people.

The OHCHR said the convictions involved charges ranging from membership in banned terrorist organizations to carrying out assassinations targeting military personnel and civilians. It noted that the sentences had been based on rulings by the High Military Court after deliberations lasting several years, without details being provided about the stages or nature of the legal proceedings that preceded the executions.

Supportive Voices

By contrast, the Libyan Association of Victims of Terrorism (AVT) welcomed the military prosecutor’s announcement that death sentences had been carried out against 10 people convicted in “terrorism-related cases.”

According to a statement reported by Libya Alhadath on August 23, the AVT said holding perpetrators of terrorist crimes accountable and ensuring they do not escape punishment was essential to delivering justice for victims, protecting society, and strengthening the rule of law.

It stressed that “combating terrorism does not conflict with the guarantees of justice, the rule of law, and judicial independence,” while emphasizing that sentences must be carried out in accordance with existing legislation, after fair trial guarantees have been met and the rulings have become final.

It also called for the rights of victims and their families to be placed at the heart of the justice process, arguing that justice is only complete when victims receive redress, the truth is established, and measures are taken to prevent such horrific crimes from being repeated.

Legal researcher and political affairs commentator Abdullah al-Dibani argued that the executions were based on provisions currently in force under Libyan law, particularly legislation governing military crimes, retribution and blood money, and criminal procedure.

Speaking to Alsaaa 24 on August 26, al-Dibani said Libya’s military legislation criminalizes joining external organizations with the aim of undermining security and stability, as well as taking up arms against the army and the state.

He expressed surprise at what he described as the “uproar” surrounding the use of the death penalty in this case, arguing that some human rights voices now criticizing the executions had not taken the same position when death sentences were issued in terrorism-related cases in previous years.

Al-Dibani stressed that respecting human rights and opposing torture and ill-treatment did not conflict with applying the law to those found guilty of terrorist offenses or crimes threatening state security, provided that prosecutions were conducted through clear judicial procedures and with full legal safeguards.

Contrary to Religious and Legal Principles

Osama Sayeh, a prosecutor at the office of Libya’s attorney general, said that all the procedures leading to the executions were unlawful.

He said that more than two years ago, he and a number of lawyers had challenged the constitutionality of Law No. 4 of 2017, which amended Libya’s military penal and criminal procedure laws. He said the Constitutional Chamber accepted the grounds of the challenge and ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The law had allowed civilians to be tried before military courts.

“That meant all military courts and prosecutors should have complied with the ruling and transferred the cases of defendants before them to the ordinary civilian courts,” he added.

Sayeh described the recent executions as a legal catastrophe and an unforgivable crime, saying they dealt a severe blow to anyone who believes in the rule of law. Regardless of the crimes attributed to those executed, he argued, no authority had the right to deprive them of their lives without first bringing them before a civilian court that guarantees their full rights to a defense and allows them to exhaust all avenues of appeal.

Religious institutions also weighed in, with the Council for Sharia Research and Studies at Libya’s Dar al-Ifta criticizing Haftar’s execution of innocent civilians through military courts.

In a statement issued on August 23, it said a military court affiliated with Haftar had executed civilians after accusing them of so-called terrorism, which it described as a pretext used to justify crimes against those who preach Islam, do good, and identify as Muslims.

The council warned that the “sham and unjust court” had lists of other detainees who could face the same fate in the coming days. It strongly condemned the shedding of protected blood and the killing of innocent people through this treachery, depravity, and aggression against human dignity.” 

It said Haftar and his supporters had begun targeting mosque imams, Quran teachers, worshippers, and religious scholars in Benghazi and Derna in 2014, displacing hundreds of thousands of people and seizing their property and money, all under the banner of fighting “terrorism.”

It also accused the speaker of Libya’s House of Representatives and those around him of sharing responsibility for the killings by passing legislation that, it said, enabled Haftar and his allies to kill and execute people outside the law and without fair judicial proceedings. The council warned of the consequences of their crimes and disregard for Islamic principles.

It said there could be no reconciliation with Haftar, his sons, or his allies, who enable the abuses and justify the taking of lives and violations of rights, at times in the name of fighting terrorism and at others through distorted interpretations of the law and sham trials.

Widespread Legal Violations

In his assessment of the executions, Ahmed Hamza, Chairman of the National Human Rights Committee in Libya, said they violated the constitution and the law because military courts have jurisdiction only over military personnel, not civilians.

Hamza told Al-Estiklal that all military courts and prosecutors should have complied with the Libyan Supreme Court’s ruling barring the prosecution of civilians before military courts. Accordingly, he said, the cases before those courts should have been transferred to the ordinary civilian judiciary.

The rights official stressed that regardless of the charges against those executed, no authority has the right to deprive them of their lives without first bringing them before the competent civilian courts, ensuring their full rights to a defense and allowing them to exhaust all avenues of appeal.

He emphasized that executing anyone without a genuine, independent, and impartial trial cannot be considered a lawful application of justice.

Hamza warned that taking a person’s life after a trial marred by a fundamental flaw in jurisdiction, defense rights, appeals, or execution procedures cannot be remedied later. An error in imposing the death penalty, he said, is irreversible.

He noted that Libyan law itself provides a number of procedural safeguards in death penalty cases, including requirements for appeals and judicial confirmation, and prohibits executions until all legally prescribed conditions have been met.

Given the absence of fundamental judicial and legal safeguards, the rights activist argued, carrying out a death sentence amounts to killing outside the framework of justice and accepted standards of fair trial.

Hamza added that any death sentence handed down without legal and human rights guarantees for fair trials before an independent civilian judiciary, free from political and security influence, remains subject to serious constitutional, legal, and human rights concerns.

He warned that a system dominated by political and security considerations and competing loyalties offers no assurance that death sentences are the result of fair judicial proceedings meeting the legal protections afforded to prisoners and defendants. Instead, he said, they risk becoming politically motivated measures or extrajudicial reprisals carried out under various pretexts, including fabricated or malicious charges used to settle political scores.

Hamza stressed that at this critical and sensitive stage, Libya does not need more rulings that deepen its divisions. What it needs, he said, is an independent judiciary, impartial justice, fair trial guarantees, and institutions that respect the right to life and human dignity without discrimination.