The police custody of Rima Hassan opened a second front, separate from the initial criminal case. Since April 8, the MEP from LFI says she filed a complaint to denounce leaks that occurred during her interview on April 2 in Paris. Gérald Darmanin referred the matter to the Inspection Générale de la 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 Moves The Case Onto The Ground Of Investigation Secrecy
The starting point is known. On April 2, Rima Hassan was placed in police custody in Paris in an investigation for glorifying terrorism. But the political and judicial sequence quickly went beyond that framework. In the hours that followed, several pieces of information about the alleged content of the procedure circulated in the press. In particular, this concerned a substance found among her belongings.
On April 8, her lawyer, Me Vincent Brengarth, announced a complaint for “violation of professional secrecy.” According to reports published the same day by the press, this step targets the disclosures that occurred during the police custody. The MEP accuses the chancery of allowing, or even feeding, information harmful to her reputation to spread.
At this stage, one point must be distinguished from the rest: the existence of the complaint is public, as is the referral to the Inspection Générale de la Justice. However, the precise responsibilities in the chain of leaks are not established. The name of the Ministry of Justice spokesperson, Sacha Straub-Kahn, was mentioned in the press after revelations by Le Canard enchaîné. He denies these accusations and has announced a defamation complaint.
Why The Referral To The Inspection Générale De La Justice Matters
Questioned in the National Assembly, Gérald Darmanin said on April 8 that he had referred the matter to the Inspection Générale de la Justice. This inspectorate, attached to the Minister of Justice, can be tasked with control and evaluation missions over the ministry’s services. Its referral does not presume wrongdoing, but it marks a shift from political debate to a formal administrative review.
The issue is sensitive, because French law sets a clear principle: the procedure during an investigation is secret. Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that those who contribute to this procedure are bound by professional secrecy. However, the same article authorizes the public prosecutor to disclose certain objective elements. Indeed, this aims to avoid the spread of partial or inaccurate information. Additionally, such action can respond to an imperative of public interest.
In other words, not all communication is prohibited per se. But it is strictly regulated. This is precisely the point the case now focuses on: did the information disseminated fall under legitimate communication, controlled by the prosecutor’s office, or were they irregular leaks from the judicial or ministerial apparatus?
In this case, the Paris prosecutor’s office thus occupies a central place. Not because it has already resolved the question of the leaks, but because it sits at the crossroads of investigation secrecy. Moreover, it is also connected to the exceptions provided by law. The complaint of Rima Hassan and the mission entrusted to the IGJ converge on this same institutional question.
The File On The Product Found In The Bag Evolved In Forty-Eight Hours
This is one of the most sensitive points of the sequence. During and after the police custody, articles relayed the supposed discovery of a narcotic product in the MEP’s belongings. That element then evolved. On April 9, Me Vincent Brengarth announced that the procedure opened on this point had been closed without further action.
According to reports the same day, the prosecutor’s office determined that the product showed a very low delta-9 THC content and could not be qualified as a narcotic. Rima Hassan’s lawyer argues that his client immediately explained it was a legally purchased medical product obtained in Brussels.
This development does not resolve the original question about the police custody for glorifying terrorism, which continues on its own course. However, it strengthens the political weight of the complaint about the leaks: an element presented urgently as potentially incriminating has, at this stage, not led to prosecution on the drug aspect.
The heart of the matter thus becomes less the rumor itself than its trajectory. How did partial information circulate? From which source? With what level of validation? And under what conditions can an institutional communication feed, even indirectly, a biased reading of an ongoing procedure?
What Is Known, And What Remains To Be Established
To date, four facts are established: the police custody of April 2 and the announcement of a complaint by Rima Hassan on April 8. In addition, Gérald Darmanin referred the matter to the Inspection Générale de la Justice. Finally, the strand related to the product found in the bag was closed without further action on April 9.
However, it is not publicly established who would be the author of the contested disclosures. Moreover, it is unknown whether this information was transmitted outside the framework permitted by law. It is also not established that the exchanges mentioned in the press in themselves amount to an offence or a disciplinary fault. That is precisely what the criminal complaint and the administrative mission will have to clarify, each at their level.
The scope of this case therefore goes beyond Rima Hassan’s case. It raises a classic question, but rarely so visible: how to preserve the secrecy of the investigation in a public space saturated with immediate commentary? In particular, this is crucial when the file involves a political figure already highly exposed. Until that answer is provided, the case remains dual: judicial on the substance, institutional on the circulation of information.