Exploring the case of Njeem Osama Almasri, we can choose to focus on the details or, more simply, bring to light the unsaid, which is the unconfessable core of the matter: this is a national security issue, governed by “State reasons” that cannot be made public.
Lawyer Luigi Li Gotti – the former member of the Italian Social Movement and ex-member of the Di Pietro party who filed a complaint for favoritism and embezzlement involving Giorgia Meloni, Matteo Piantedosi, Carlo Nordio, and Alfredo Mantovano – explained to the newspapers that he made a “judicial choice, not a political one”. A formally correct statement, but not true in substance, as Li Gotti wanted to light a fuse on a powder keg, knowing that this would only create some media and judicial chaos (and that was his intention, a purely “political” intent, rather than one of “justice”).
Blamers and conspiracists
Naturally, one can debate at length whether Minister Nordio should have, after the request from The Hague and the information sent by the Prosecutor to the Ministry of Justice, and after the arrest and release of Almasri, issued a precautionary measure against the Libyan police chief or if he could have chosen not to do so. One could also dwell on the profile of the Libyan – who at first glance seems like a “bad guy” – or note, as Prime Minister Meloni also did, that the man, after wandering for about a dozen days in three European countries, was only reached by The Hague request after arriving in Italy.
In short, we could delve into learned legal analyses and, citing legal codes, debate on what should have been done and how. But, let us say, these are details compared to the heart of the matter. Even the division between blamers and conspiracists can be used to take sides based on political sympathies, but it does not consider that the representatives of a State are sometimes called to make choices motivated by “reasons” that, even if not crystal clear, still have foundations. This is what we call, precisely, “State reasons.”
State Reasons
Those who have been entrusted with power in Italy cannot ignore them. For example, they cannot ignore that in January 2025, compared to the same period last year, there has been a surge in migrant landings on Italian coasts. Last year there were 1,863, this year 3,354, “of which about 1,500 just last week,” as noted by the Corriere.
Do we understand each other? We may like it or not, but in the real world, and not just in the world where there are impeccable people who are outraged because the Libyan was brought back home, this happens.
We can choose to be hypocrites or tell things as they are, without fooling anyone. As Maurizio Belpietro wrote candidly in the Verità:
“There is no point in hiding behind a finger: detaining the jailer and handing him over to magistrates who pursue human rights violations would have triggered a Libyan reaction, with the release of tens of thousands of migrants left free to sail to Italian shores. A possibility that the government decided to avert.”
False Transparency
We can think what we want about the issue, but we cannot pretend not to know that certain results are achieved only through compromises. Is there perhaps someone who believes that very complex issues can be resolved solely through good manners and transparency? Involving the judiciary in matters related to national security is just a way to “politicize” it.
And this was not done disinterestedly and innocently on the Almasri case. In fact, as Belpietro further wrote,
“No magistrate ever thought of sending a notice of guarantee to those who allowed the release of Cecilia Sala in exchange for the liberation of an Iranian engineer accused of providing material for an attack.”
And rightly so, because that was the only way to bring the journalist back home.
