Chakib Khalil be prosecuted in the supreme court according to judicial privilege

Algerian human rights’ activists confirmed that investigation with Chakib Khalil, former energy and mines minister, on what was promoted about his implication in a case of corruption in Sonatrach, will not be launched, if there is no political will for that, based on a request from the public prosecution, and will be according to special measures as a firmer minister.

Same activists added that investigation with Chakib Khalil will be in the supreme court, which assigned his mission to a judge advisor, according to the laws in application in case members of government like governors or judges, are implicated in misdemeanors or felonies.

In this context, lawyer Borghol Khaled, told Echorouk that misdemeanors and felonies that were committed by people who took important positions in power, such as governors, judges, MPs and ministers, are considered in the judicial privileges.

“If a senior official is implicated in any case related with corruption during service, the public prosecution should take the necessary measures to launch a judicial follow up in the supreme court, as a judge advisor in court will investigate with him according to special measures that are issued by the code on criminal measures”.

“If Chakib Khalil will be prosecuted in Sonatrach case, this would be according to a political will by supreme authorities, through moving the public action against him by the public prosecutor.

“Supreme court in Algeria already dealt with similar files, especially which involved senior officials in the country, such as Taref governor, eastern Algeria, and Blida governor, western Algiers. If investigation with Chakib Khalil will be according to the procedures in application according to article 573 of the criminal procedures, in the supreme court, after finishing investigation, they will refer the accused to the judicial party, in the court of misdemeanors if the incidents are related to misdemeanors, or in the court of felonies or absence of the case against him if there is no evidence which proves his implication”.