Hamady Lehbous Dismissed: When Mauritanian regime punishes loyalty & exposes its democratic masquerade

By Cheikh Sidati Hamadi – Senior Expert on the Rights of CDWD, Analyst and Associate Researcher

In a genuine rule-of-law state, receiving visiting guests with respect, engaging in open dialogue, and sharing a vision or a common cause should be both an institutional norm and a human courtesy.

But in Mauritania, under an anxious regime obsessed with control, the slightest gesture of autonomy is branded subversive—and its authors are treated as threats to be neutralized.

The abrupt dismissal of Hamady Lehbous—a respected senior civil servant, founding member and Secretary General of IRA-Mauritania, and loyal companion of Biram Dah Abeid—is an act of immense symbolic and political gravity.

This is not merely the revocation of a public official; it is the punishment of loyalty, of commitment to principle, and of proud belonging to a liberation movement. The regime cannot tolerate free voices, even when they serve the state with skill and dedication.

A Political Dismissal, a Message of Intimidation

Hamady Lehbous's so-called “offense”? He received, in Dakar, members of IRA-France in a legal, peaceful, brotherly, and committed setting—a gesture of hospitality, courtesy, and conviction.
But through the authoritarian lens of the regime, this becomes an unforgivable offense, a crime of lèse-majesté. Yet the very same ministry that now removes him once praised his spotless record and commendable service.

What changed? Nothing—except that his visible, steadfast allegiance to IRA has become intolerable to a system that fears what it cannot control. This dismissal is a warning: any loyalty not directed toward the regime is subject to retaliation. Any fidelity to ideals outside the official narrative is punished.

Dialogue: A Crude Farce

For years, the regime has proclaimed its commitment to dialogue, staging supposedly inclusive meetings and parading itself as a democracy in progress. But actions consistently betray these declarations. By sanctioning Hamady Lehbous, the regime exposes its democratic theater: it does not want real dialogue but a performance; not an exchange of ideas but a scripted rehearsal where everyone sticks to the lines imposed. Independent figures, sincere voices, and grassroots leaders are excluded, marginalized, or silenced. The regime wants a dialogue with no dissenters. A democracy with no opposition. A stage with no substance.

The False Abolition of Slavery, Persecution of Abolitionists

We are told, on every institutional rooftop, that slavery has been abolished—that only residual traces remain. But what, then, explains this institutional violence against a peaceful activist committed to eradicating the remnants of slavery? The dismissal of Hamady Lehbous is further proof that the system has never turned the page. It continues to reproduce structures of domination, logics of exclusion, and mechanisms of repression. It is not enough to criminalize slavery in legal texts; those who combat it must also be protected. What we witness instead is the targeted persecution of abolitionists, as though they pose an existential threat to the established order.

IRA-Mauritania: Defiance as Compass

IRA is disruptive because it embodies autonomy, ethical radicalism, and loyalty to the people. It is not a satellite of the regime, nor a corruptible structure. Born in pain and prohibition, IRA has steadily grown in legitimacy and grassroots support. Its strength does not come from clientelism, but from the deep memory of suffering, the courage of the marginalized, and the will to break with injustice. Hamady Lehbous, as a comrade from the very beginning, personifies this moral straight line. He never compromised, and that is why he is being punished.

Conclusion

The dismissal of Hamady Lehbous is more than an administrative sanction: it is a political mistake, a calculated humiliation, a chilling signal to all sincere activists. But it is also an admission of weakness.
A strong regime does not fear ideas or selfless loyalty. A confident power responds not with exclusion but with argument and openness. This dismissal reveals that the regime fears independence, dreads the truth, and avoids real debate.

It prefers puppets over partners, forced applause over frank challenges. Yet despite repression, IRA stands firm. Firm, because it is not a power-seeking enterprise, but a project of justice. Firm, because it refuses to bargain with dignity. Firm, because it seeks not the regime's favor, but the liberation of the oppressed. And as long as the state clings to falsehood, IRA will hold fast to truth. As long as it locks itself in repression, IRA will open paths to hope.

The dialogue the regime fears today will inevitably surface—in the streets, at the ballot box, in awakened consciences, and in History.

Also Read: What the Néma Death Tells Us About Health and Human Dignity in Mauritania