Credits: AN2303 / Wikimedia Commons — CC0.
The police custody of Rima Hassan has opened a second front, separate from the original criminal case. Since April 8, the LFI MEP says she filed a complaint to report leaks that occurred during her April 2 hearing in Paris. Gérald Darmanin has referred the matter to the General Inspectorate of Justice. The issue is now procedural and institutional: to determine whether information covered by the secrecy of the investigation was communicated to the press, and by whom.
A Complaint That Shifts The Case Onto The Ground Of Investigation Secrecy
The starting point is known. On April 2, Rima Hassan was taken into police custody in Paris in an investigation for glorifying terrorism. But the political and judicial sequence quickly moved beyond that framework. In the hours that followed, several details about the alleged content of the proceedings circulated in the press. In particular, this concerned a product found among her belongings.
On April 8, her lawyer, Me Vincent Brengarth, announced a complaint for “breach of professional secrecy.” According to reports published the same day by the press, this step targets disclosures made during police custody. The MEP accuses the Justice Ministry of having allowed, or even fueled, information damaging to her reputation.
At this stage, one point must be distinguished from the rest: the existence of the complaint is public, as is the referral to the General Inspectorate of Justice. By contrast, the specific responsibilities in the chain of leaks have not been established. The name of the spokesperson for the French Justice Ministry, Sacha Straub-Kahn, was mentioned in the press after revelations by Le Canard enchaîné. He disputes these accusations and has announced a defamation lawsuit.
Why The Referral To The General Inspectorate Of Justice Matters
Questioned in the National Assembly, Gérald Darmanin said on April 8 that he had referred the matter to the General Inspectorate of Justice. This inspectorate, attached to the Minister of Justice, can be tasked with oversight and evaluation missions for ministry departments. Its referral does not imply wrongdoing, but it marks the move from political debate to formal administrative review.
The issue is sensitive, because French law sets out a clear principle: proceedings during an investigation are secret. Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that people involved in those proceedings are bound by professional secrecy. However, the same article allows the public prosecutor to disclose certain objective elements. Indeed, this is meant to prevent the spread of partial or inaccurate information. In addition, this action can meet a public-interest requirement.
In other words, not every communication is prohibited in itself. But it is strictly regulated. That is precisely the point now at the center of the case: were the released details part of legitimate communication, under the prosecutor’s control, or were they irregular leaks from the judicial or ministerial apparatus?
In this case, the Paris prosecutor therefore occupies a central role. Not because it has already resolved the leak issue, but because it sits at the intersection of investigation secrecy. In addition, it is also linked to the exceptions provided by law. The complaint by Rima Hassan and the mission entrusted to the IGJ converge on that same institutional question.
The Case Of The Item Found In The Bag Evolved Over Forty-Eight Hours
This is one of the most sensitive points in the sequence. During and after police custody, articles reported the alleged discovery of a narcotic product in the MEP’s belongings. But that element later changed. On April 9, Me Vincent Brengarth announced that the proceedings opened on this point had been dismissed.
According to the information reported the same day, the prosecutor concluded that the product contained a very low level of delta-9 THC and could not be classified as a narcotic. Rima Hassan’s lawyer, for his part, says his client immediately explained that it was a lawful medical purchase made in Brussels.
This development does not resolve the original question regarding the police custody for glorifying terrorism, which is proceeding separately. However, it strengthens the political weight of the leak complaint: an element presented in haste as potentially damning has, at this stage, not led to prosecution on the narcotics aspect.
The heart of the matter is therefore less the rumor itself than how it traveled. How did partial information circulate? From what source? With what level of verification? And under what conditions can institutional communication, even indirectly, feed a skewed reading of an ongoing case?
What Is Known, And What Still Needs To Be Established
To date, four facts are established: the April 2 police custody and the announcement of a complaint by Rima Hassan on April 8. In addition, Gérald Darmanin referred the matter to the General Inspectorate of Justice. Finally, the aspect linked to the product found in the bag was dismissed on April 9.
By contrast, it has not been publicly established who authored the disputed disclosures. Nor is it known whether this information was transmitted outside the framework authorized by law. It is not established either that the exchanges mentioned in the press in themselves constitute an offense or disciplinary misconduct. That is precisely what the criminal complaint and the administrative mission will each need to clarify, at their respective levels.
The significance of this case therefore goes beyond Rima Hassan. It raises a classic question, but one rarely as visible: how do you preserve investigation secrecy in a public space saturated with instant commentary? In particular, this is crucial when the case involves a political figure already under intense scrutiny. Until that answer is provided, the case remains twofold: judicial on the substance, institutional on the circulation of information.
Video unavailable