Algeria's Lower House Backs Death Penalty for Forest Arson
Algeria's National People's Assembly voted on Thursday to approve a penal-code change that would allow the death penalty for people convicted of forest arson. AFP President Abdelmadjid Tebboune had called for the revision in September 2026. Al Jazeera
The amendment covers anyone who tries to undermine public security and order, national unity or economic and environmental stability. In plain terms, it treats arson as a threat to state security and to the economy and environment, not only as damage to property. It is like writing a rule against harming the neighborhood rather than just against setting fires.
The vote came after wildfires in the northeast killed at least 12 people before Tebboune's September call. The fires linked to the bill spread across several regions of the country. AP
The text now goes to the Council of the Nation, the upper house of parliament, for review. Algeria has had a moratorium since 1993. Think of a moratorium as a pause button on executions. Justice Minister Lotfi Boudjemaa defended the change, saying "adoption of the death penalty is the appropriate legal response to curb these crimes." Tebboune has said death sentences in terror-related cases would be carried out once appeals were exhausted.
Prosecutors and security services have previously described wildfires as criminal acts. During the 2021 wildfires, authorities detained at least 30 people, including seven members of the Movement for the Self-Determination of Kabylie (MAK). Algerian authorities have listed MAK as a terrorist organisation.
Rights advocates reject that security framing. Amnesty International called the move a "deeply retrograde response." Human rights organisations accused the government of using the change as a pretext to use capital punishment against political opposition groups. A coalition of human rights groups said the death penalty "has never deterred arsonists from committing crimes."
The broader context here is a clash between two ideas about punishment. For officials, the threat of execution offers a severe penalty for fires that kill civilians, destroy forests and stretch emergency services. For abolitionists — people who oppose the death penalty — and defense lawyers, the broad wording raises concern because terms like national unity and economic stability could give prosecutors power far beyond a single fire. The 2021 detentions and the terrorist label for MAK help explain why opposition networks view the amendment mainly as a security tool.
Looking at what this means for the moratorium, approval by the Council of the Nation alone would not end the pause in place since 1993. Executions would have to resume for a formal break. Tebboune's comment on terror-related sentences shows where that line could be tested. Until the upper house acts, the amendment is a lower-house position, not a rule courts can use. Its fate there, and the details of how it would be applied, will shape whether courts gain a rarely used capital charge or one used more often.
