The assassination of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was a painful blow to supporters of the previous regime in Libya. None of the alternatives can build the kind of consensus that Saif al-Islam had commanded among his father’s supporters, nor appeal to groups who were disillusioned with the Arab Spring after years of hardship, state failure, and chaos.
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was killed by four masked gunmen who had stormed his residence in the mountain town of Zintan, southwest of the capital Tripoli. Zintan is a small town whose residents keep an eye on strangers, raising many questions and controversies around the assassination.
The killing of Gaddafi’s son requires accountability and a criminal investigation. This is a moral issue, not an exercise in settling scores. Many individuals are complicit in the killing of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi; there are “black files” that some sought to destroy by killing him. It was the scene of an extrajudicial execution, and justice demands that those responsible for killing Gaddafi’s son be tried after blatantly violating Islamic teachings and all laws and norms.
Amid the ambiguity surrounding Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s killing, the very timid demands by those pretending to advocate for justice and human rights make them complicit. Their silence over Saif al-Islam’s killing is the latest episode of their inaction throughout the “festival of killing” staged by these criminals for many years, fueling assassinations, facilitating the perpetuation of such “festivals.” Killing with impunity, they have turned Libya into a dumping ground for corpses.
Many actors wanted to see Saif al-Islam Gaddafi killed: local, international, and even regional. Locally, those fueling chaos and supporting militia rule in Tripoli are the ultimate beneficiaries, as are his political rivals. He ran in the presidential elections that had been scheduled for 2021 but were postponed indefinitely due to disagreements over the constitutional framework.
Saif al-Islam’s candidacy in the presidential elections also raised international concerns. US Ambassador Richard Norland has attacked Saif al-Islam Gaddafi in the past, characterizing his candidacy as a “bomb” that blew up the election and that Saif al-Islam was allowed to run because of legislative loopholes, adding that they were being amended. Observers considered this a blatant intervention by the ambassador. His comments affirm that Saif al-Islam’s candidacy was unacceptable to the international powers that had overthrown his father’s regime through brute force. They would not tolerate his return through elections, especially since he had had very strong chances of winning.
Libyan elections were a local obsession and a source of anxiety internationally, especially since he could have swept the race. The United States and Russia clashed over Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s candidacy. At the time, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Joey Hood, claimed that the whole world objected to his candidacy and saw him as a war criminal.” By contrast, Russia strongly supported Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s run, even considering him the best candidate.
Despite the local and international controversy surrounding Saif al-Islam’s candidacy because he was seen as the heir to his father’s rule, Saif al-Islam- even during his father’s time in power- was among the fiercest critics of the old guard and the men in Muammar Gaddafi’s tent, clashing with them regularly. His education abroad led him to sympathize with Western ideas and culture. He tolerated dissent and difference of opinion at a time of fear, repression, and suffocation. He was forthright and fair, as attested to by the characterization of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom “does not betray its enemies, let alone its friends. Believe me, we have long been at odds with Saudi Arabia, but it did not betray us even when it had the chance. What drives Saudi policy is tolerant Islamic principles, not interests.”
A holistic view reveals that his local rivals were not the only ones who wanted Saif al-Islam removed from the presidential contest. His father’s international adversaries were also determined to stand in his way. Khaled al-Zaidi, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s lawyer, made this claim explicitly. “We have evidence and information proving that the American and British ambassadors played a role in stopping and obstructing the electoral process because of the acceptance of my client’s candidacy.”
In conclusion, whoever was responsible, Saif al-Islam has been killed, and his movement has lost its anchor. With his death, I believe his movement has been condemned to fragmentation, as there is no convincing substitute at present. Even his sister Aisha Gaddafi would fail to garner the appeal of her brother Saif al-Islam. With his death, the page of the Gaddafi family’s return to power in Libya has probably been turned. Whoever killed Saif al-Islam Gaddafi knew exactly what they were doing.
