This week, the Spanish Supreme Court delivered a final blow to a years-long legal and political manipulation effort: the definitive dismissal of a genocide complaint brought against leaders of the Frente Polisario, the national liberation movement of Western Sahara. The ruling closes a case that was never built on legal merit, but rather on fabricated allegations designed to discredit the Sahrawi cause in Spanish and international opinion.
The original lawsuit, filed by the so-called “Asociación Saharaui para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos” (ASADEH), accused senior Polisario officials of committing genocide against Sahrawi civilians in the Tindouf refugee camps in Algeria. But even from the outset, the case was riddled with inconsistencies, factual implausibilities, and a clear lack of jurisdictional or evidentiary basis.
A Case Built on Lies, Not Law
The Spanish judiciary had already ruled in 2021, in the parallel case involving Polisario President Brahim Ghali, that there was no evidence to support the accusations. Furthermore, any alleged incidents would have long exceeded Spain’s statute of limitations, as they referred to events supposedly occurring between 1975 and 1990, while the initial charges were not filed until 2012.
This latest Supreme Court decision reiterates those findings and confirms what many observers had long understood: the case was never meant to be won in court. It was a political maneuver disguised as legal action — aimed not at justice, but at defamation.
Indeed, the lengthy judicial process itself was part of the strategy. The goal was not conviction, but reputational damage. By dragging respected Sahrawi leaders through years of legal uncertainty, the organizers of the complaint sought to cast shadows of doubt and discredit on the broader Sahrawi national movement — especially in Spain, where public and political sympathy for the Sahrawi cause has historically been strong.
Weaponizing the Courts
Human rights observers and legal experts have long denounced such cases as examples of lawfare — the weaponization of judicial systems for political ends. In this case, the Spanish judiciary, though ultimately firm and principled in its rulings, was used as a stage for Morocco-aligned actors to push a false narrative of Sahrawi criminality.
The irony is stark: while Sahrawi refugees continue to endure exile under harsh conditions, and while Morocco continues to occupy Western Sahara in defiance of international law, it is the very victims of aggression who were being dragged through courts by fabricated charges.
A Vindication, But Also a Warning
The Supreme Court’s final dismissal of this farcical case is a moral and political vindication for the Sahrawi people. It reaffirms that truth ultimately prevails, even if delayed.
However, it also stands as a warning about how easily legal systems can be exploited in attempts to delegitimize liberation movements. The Sahrawi struggle — peaceful, legal, and based on fundamental international norms — must not be conflated with the smear campaigns of its adversaries.
As Spain closes this legal chapter, it should also reflect on its historical and ongoing responsibility toward Western Sahara. Justice, after all, does not end with the closure of a file. It begins with standing firmly against defamation and impunity — and with acknowledging the legitimate rights of a people still denied their freedom.
