When power is on trial: The Sarkozy appeal and what’s at stake for democracy

France has seen its share of political scandals. But some cases do more than fill headlines – they test whether the rules actually apply when power is on the line.

The ongoing Libya case, involving Nicolas Sarkozy’s alleged breaches of election finance rules during his 2007 presidential campaign, is one of those cases – and its implications extend beyond France.

Across Europe and globally, prosecutions of powerful figures increasingly trigger attacks on judges and claims of political bias. Where such tactics succeed, accountability weakens and corruption risks rise. This case will be watched internationally as a signal of whether democratic systems can enforce the law at the highest levels of power.

Last September, Sarkozy was convicted of criminal conspiracy and sentenced to five year’s imprisonment, a fine and a ban on holding public office – he spent a few weeks in prison before being released. Yet, the same judgement dismissed corruption, embezzlement of public funds and illegal campaign financing charges – decisions now central to an appeal hearing running from 16 March to 2 June 2026.

Transparency International France is directly involved in the proceedings as a recognised civil party, a legal status in French criminal procedure that allows victims and certain associations, including anti-corruption organisations, to formally join criminal proceedings, access case files, and seek remedies before the criminal court. We will be challenging aspects of the judgment that led to the dismissed corruption and illicit financial campaign charges.

Since last year’s ruling, Sarkozy and his supporters have intensified attacks on the judges, accusing them of bias. Promoting the narrative that the judiciary is not independent risks undermining public confidence in the legal system that citizens rely on and damaging the conditions under which justice must operate. In one instance, the judge who delivered the decision received death threats after the verdict. That is not political theatre. It is pressure directed at the foundations of the rule of law.

Similar tactics have been seen elsewhere, from Donald Trump and his supporters in the United States to Viktor Orbán in Hungary, where political pressure on courts has weakened democratic checks and balances – underlining the wider significance of this trial.

Nicolas Sarkozy was accused of entering into a corruption pact to obtain illegal financing for his 2007 election campaign. In exchange, he is alleged to have committed to providing economic, diplomatic and legal favours.

According to investigators, Sarkozy’s alleged arrangement traces back to 2005, when contacts intensified between his circle, intermediaries and representatives of the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Evidence presented in court described secret meetings, intermediaries acting as brokers and financial flows routed through complex channels.

Last year’s ruling found Sarkozy guilty of association de malfaiteurs, a criminal offence referring to participation in an organised group formed to prepare serious crimes or offences, in this case corruption.

In November 2025, another conviction and one-year prison sentence for illegal financing of his 2012 re-election effort were upheld. He was found guilty of spending nearly twice the legal campaign limit.

The very fact this case reached trial shows something important: France’s rule of law can function even when the accused is a former president. The judiciary demonstrated independence and reaffirmed a basic democratic principle – no political leader stands above the law.

But the case also exposes structural weaknesses.

Almost 20 years passed between the alleged acts and the opening of trial. Such delays are not coincidence. They reflect chronic shortages of resources dedicated to investigating complex economic and financial crime. When corruption cases take decades to reach court, deterrence fades and public confidence erodes.

Public trust in leaders and government is already fragile in France. According to a 2025 Eurobarometer survey, two thirds of French citizens believe corruption is widespread in their country. That scepticism is reinforced by broader trends. France’s score in the latest Corruption Perceptions Index has fallen to 66 out of 100, its lowest ever. France is not alone in this trend, with several other European countries seeing similar declines – a warning sign that even in established democracies, institutional safeguards cannot be taken for granted.

This is why Transparency International France denounces the harm caused by attacks on the judiciary by the defence in this case. Such attacks do not occur in a vacuum. They create pressure that can affect citizens’ trust in their institutions and undermine the ability of civil society organisations to participate safely and effectively in proceedings.

Transparency International France is not observing this case from the sidelines. We are participating directly as a civil party alongside Sherpa and Anticor, representing the public interest in proceedings that go to the heart of democratic integrity.

That role has not gone unchallenged. Our legal standing – and that of partner organisations – was repeatedly contested by the defence throughout the investigation and trial. Strikingly, the only days of hearings the defendants chose not to attend were those devoted to the testimony and observations of the civil parties. Despite these challenges, the court acknowledged at first instance that, when the facts in question undermine public integrity, the actions of associations can contribute to establishing the truth and effectively protecting the rule of law.

This comes in the context of the EU Anti-Corruption Directive, which all member states will soon transpose into national law and which will require them to grant NGOs standing rights in corruption cases. Currently, only a handful of EU countries have such provisions in place, including France.

The trial already shows that France’s institutions can hold even a former president to account. But democratic strength is measured not only by opening proceedings, but by seeing them through – and by fixing the weaknesses the case has exposed.

France must reinforce its democratic safeguards. Lawmakers should lower the threshold on cash donations, strengthen oversight, require real-time transparency in campaign spending and better regulate intermediaries. And enforcement must match ambition: investigators and prosecutors need the staff, time and funding to apply the law effectively.

It is also worth recalling that a major resolution adopted at CoSP11 on political finance transparency established the first global minimum standards to prevent opaque and anonymous money from influencing political parties and election campaigns – an international benchmark France could help advance if it treats this trial as a catalyst for reform.

If accountability is seen to be diluted or derailed by pressure from those with power, public trust in authorities will erode. But if justice runs its course – and reforms follow – it will send a powerful signal, in France and far beyond it, that even the most powerful people are not above the law.