On Thursday, former Tunisian Prime Minister Hisham Al-Mashishi submitted a statement of his gains and interests (a financial disclosure statement) to the National Anti-Corruption Authority, in his first appearance since his dismissal 11 days ago, and in light of reports that he was under house arrest.

This came according to a brief statement issued by the National Anti-Corruption Authority, (independent constitutionality), attached to pictures of Al-Mishichi at the authority’s headquarters, according to its website.

The authority said that this procedure “falls within the requirements of Law No. 46 of 2018 related to declaring gains and interests and combating illicit enrichment and conflict of interests, following the end of his (Al-Mashishi) duties.”

On Wednesday, the National Authority for the Prevention of Torture (an independent constitutional authority) called on “everyone who may be interested” to contact it to provide it with any useful information about Al-Mashishi’s situation, and denied knowing of the existence of a judicial or administrative decision related to his placement under house arrest.

The commission added that, since last July 26, it has placed Al-Mashishi’s file among the investigation files on the possibility of suspicions of detention or mistreatment within the meaning of international law and national criminal law.

On July 25, President Qais Saeed decided to dismiss Al-Mashishi, and he would assume the executive authority with the help of a government whose president would be appointed, freezing the powers of Parliament for a period of 30 days, lifting the immunity of MPs, and heading the Public Prosecution Office.

He took these decisions on a day when many governorates witnessed popular protests, which demanded the overthrow of the entire ruling system and accused the opposition of failure, in light of the political, economic and health crises (Corona).

Saeed says that his exceptional measures are based on Article 80 of the constitution, and aim to “save the state.”

However, the majority of parties rejected these measures, and some considered them a “coup against the constitution,” while others supported them, and saw them as a “correction of the course.”