The death penalty in Algeria: an Algerian decision — and it is not negotiated in London
David Ashworth — Londres, Royaume-Uni — 2026-09-15
Methodological note. Every element of this file is dated and attributed to a named source. We distinguish what was decided, what was demanded, and what remains a debate. And at the end, we concede what must be conceded — including what is uncomfortable for us.
⚖️ The facts, and their dates
On Sunday 30 August 2026, in the wake of deadly fires that struck several regions of the country, the President of the Republic Abdelmadjid Tebboune announced the resumption of executions of the death penalty in Algeria.
This resumption does not concern all crimes. It targets two, and two only:
- deliberate arson fires that cause deaths;
- abduction, murder and trafficking of children.
One point of precision, because it matters and because many forget it: Algeria has never abolished the death penalty. It is on the statute book in the Algerian penal code. What has existed since 1993 is a moratorium on executions — that is, the sentence was handed down, but it was no longer carried out. That is thirty-three years.
So what changes is not the law: it is its application. This is not a matter of vocabulary — it is the difference between describing a decision and inventing one.
What is known about the fires: the official toll counts 12 dead in the north and east of the country. Witnesses speak of several dozen dead. And Amnesty International, relying on what it calls “credible sources”, reports a toll “significantly higher” than the official statistics, citing in particular “more than 70 dead in a single commune”.
Several people suspected of arson have been arrested. President Tebboune stated that he had detected “something criminal” behind the outbreak of these fires.
🗣️ What Amnesty International demanded, word for word
The organisation's communiqué is unambiguous. We quote it in full, because one does not answer a sentence one has summarised:
“The Algerian authorities must immediately renounce any plan to widen the scope of the death penalty or to resume executions after more than three decades without carrying out any.”
Amnesty further advocates formalising the moratorium, presented as “a first step towards the complete abolition of the death penalty”.
And the organisation's researcher specialising in Algeria, Nadège Lahmar, adds this:
“The devastation and loss of life caused by these fires are a profound tragedy and should prompt the Algerian authorities to take urgent measures focused both on prevention and on accountability. But returning on more than thirty years without executions is a deeply regressive response, contrary to respect for the right to life.”
We reproduce these words as they are. They are dated, signed, verifiable. They deserve a reasoned answer, not a caricature.
🇬🇧 And now the fundamental question: who decides on the Algerian penal code?
Amnesty International is a human rights organisation headquartered in London. It does work that we do not scorn: it documents, it publishes, it challenges. That is its strictest right.
But there is a difference — and it is one of nature, not of degree — between challenging and commanding.
The word used by the communiqué is “immediately renounce”. That is not a recommendation addressed to a partner: it is an order addressed to a state.
Yet criminal law is one of the most elementary attributes of sovereignty. No state in the world lets a foreign non-governmental organisation set its scale of penalties. Not France, not the United Kingdom, not the United States — and there is no precedent, anywhere, where this has happened other than by force.
This is therefore not a question of opinion. It is a question of competence: an NGO can challenge a decision. It cannot make it.
And one simple thing must be said, which the tone of the communiqué prevents people from seeing: Algeria does not have to obtain London's authorisation to apply its laws on its own territory.
🇩🇿 The debate exists — and it is Algerian
One thing must be said, because it is rarely said: the debate is taking place. It is public, it is adversarial, and it is happening in Algeria.
The decision's supporters are numerous, and they are not anonymous:
- The National Liberation Front (FLN) approved it. Its secretary-general, Abdelkrim Benmebarek, declared: “We stand with the Algerian state's decision. These people destroyed our young people with drugs, raped minors. Do people like that deserve freedom?” — adding that such a sentence is provided for by the Muslim religion.
- The National Rally for Democracy (RND) expressed its support through its secretary-general, Mounder Boudene.
- The Front of Justice and Development (FJD), through its president Abdallah Djaballah, supported the measure while vehemently criticising its opponents.
And voices clearly oppose it. TSA Algérie, which covered the subject on 8 September 2026, writes that the measure divides the political class: a large part of the political class and of civil society supports it, certain voices oppose it without ambiguity.
Note the form this debate takes: it is happening in front of Algerians, in Algerian media, with named Algerian officials. It is imperfect — but it is a political debate, and it belongs to those to whom it belongs.
⚖️ What we concede, because it is true
First: the death penalty is irreversible. It is the one argument that cannot be refuted. A miscarriage of justice can be repaired — an execution cannot. And that objection, Nadège Lahmar has the right to raise it: it is serious, it is old, it is respectable.
Second: on the human toll, there is a gap — and it must be explained, not swept aside. The government announces 12 dead. Amnesty speaks of “more than 70 dead in a single commune”. Those two figures cannot both be true at the same time.
And here is our position, without evasion: the victims' families are entitled to the truth, wherever it comes from. If the real toll is heavier than the announced toll, that must be said — and not because a foreign NGO said it, but because it is owed to the dead and to those who mourn them. We will never defend a figure against the truth.
Third: the first sentence of Nadège Lahmar is right. “Measures focused both on prevention and on accountability.” Prevention in particular: what burned, why, and what was done — or not done — to prevent it. A sentence does not replace a prevention policy.
🎯 And here is the point nobody puts forward
People debate what Algeria will do with the guilty. Very little is said about what Algeria owes its dead.
A country that has seen its forests burn and its children abducted has the right to decide what response it gives. It is its population that was struck, its territory that burned, its families that are in mourning.
And there is an asymmetry that must be named: Amnesty International did not lose a single dead person in these fires. It has the right to hold an opinion — it has no mourning to carry. It is Algerians who bury their dead.
That does not disqualify its analysis. It locates its place. One can listen to an observer. One does not hand them the keys.
🎯 The conclusion, in three sentences
On 30 August 2026, Algeria decided to resume executions of the death penalty for two crimes: deliberate arson fires causing deaths, and abduction, murder and trafficking of children — after thirty-three years of moratorium.
Amnesty International asks it to renounce this “immediately”. An organisation headquartered in London can document, publish and challenge. It does not set the penal code of a sovereign state — and no country in the world would accept that.
The debate on the death penalty is legitimate. It is taking place in Algeria, between Algerians. And it will end in Algeria — whether that pleases people or not.
🔗 The sources, direct access — click and check for yourself
- The full quotation from Nadège Lahmar, Amnesty International's position, the official toll of 12 dead and the figures put forward by the NGO — 20 minutes, 15 September 2026: https://www.20minutes.fr/monde/4245657-20260915-algerie-amnesty-international-conjure-president-tebboune-renoncer-peine-mort-pyromanes
- The decision of 30 August, the two crimes concerned, the moratorium since 1993 and the Algerian political reactions (FLN, RND, FJD) — TSA Algérie, 8 September 2026: https://www.tsa-algerie.com/peine-de-mort-en-algerie-les-pour-et-contre-son-retablissement/
- Amnesty's demand and the campaign against widening the death penalty — Democrata: https://www.democrata.es/en/international/amnesty-urges-algeria-to-abandon-its-plans-to-expand-the-death-penalty-and-resume-executions/
These three links open the cited articles directly, with their dates. They are enough to verify the entirety of this file.
Final note. The quotations from Amnesty International and its researcher are reproduced without being truncated or summarised — it is not honest to answer a sentence one has abbreviated oneself. Both human tolls are attributed to their respective authors, and we present neither as established: we have no independent verification. An organisation has the right to be wrong. So does a state. The difference is that the state must answer to its citizens.