Sebaihi says the bill reverses the burden of proof
Sabrina SebaihiMember and secretary of the National Assembly, Écologiste et Social group
Sebaihi opposed the proposal, saying it reverses the burden of proof and protects neither professional police officers nor the people they serve.
“This bill protects neither police officers, who carry out their mission with professionalism and whose daily work I salute ... nor our fellow citizens whom they are supposed to protect. It creates a presumption of self-defense that reverses the burden of proof, the foundation of our judicial system. (Translated from French. Original: Cette proposition de loi ne protège ni les policiers, qui accomplissent leur mission avec professionnalisme et dont je salue le travail au quotidien ... ni nos concitoyens qu'ils sont censés protéger. Elle crée une présomption de légitime défense qui inverse la charge de la preuve, fondement de notre système judiciaire.)”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
A bill filed by French lawmaker Éric Pauget and rewritten by the government would create a rebuttable presumption that national police officers and gendarmes who use firearms acted within an authorized statutory circumstance and complied with requirements of absolute necessity and strict proportionality. The National Assembly adopted the text on July 7, 2026, and sent it to the Senate. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez and police-union supporters say the measure would protect officers without ending judicial review; the Defender of Rights, a UN special rapporteur and human-rights groups argue that it could weaken investigations, victims’ remedies and accountability for lethal force.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Official National Assembly publication of Sebaihi’s July 7 question. She opposed the proposal, saying it reverses the burden of proof and would reinforce impunity rather than protect officers or the public.
Before the quotation
Opening a question to the interior minister, Sebaihi quoted Robert Badinter and said the Assembly was about to reintroduce a death penalty carried out without trial, in the street.
After the quotation
She cited opposition from the Defender of Rights, the human-rights advisory commission and many magistrates' organizations, listed deaths during police interventions and said the law would reinforce impunity. In a follow-up, she said young people were afraid, promoted a petition against the measure and asked the minister to withdraw it.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
She expressly described the proposal as dangerous, said it would reinforce impunity and called for its withdrawal. That is explicit condemnation of the conduct at issue.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseNuñez rejects the claim that the firearms bill creates a license to kill
“What we are creating is a simple presumption, which can be overturned very quickly, as the text provides. So stop saying everywhere that we have created a license to kill! (Translated from French. Original: Ce que nous créons est une simple présomption, qui peut être renversée très rapidement, ce que le texte prévoit. Arrêtez donc de dire partout que nous aurions créé un permis de tuer !)”Read statement
LDH says the police firearm presumption would obstruct investigations of shootings
Ligue des droits de l'Homme
“Yet establishing a presumption that shootings are lawful would amount to accepting from the outset that the use of the weapon was lawful, and therefore to slowing down, or even preventing, investigations, with the possible consequence that unjustified uses escape any sanction. As a result, victims would be deprived of any hope that the truth would come out, and all the current failings would be legitimized. (Translated from French. Original: Or l’instauration d’une présomption de légalité des tirs reviendrait à admettre d’emblée la conformité de l’usage de l’arme et donc de freiner, voire d’empêcher, la réalisation d’investigations, avec pour conséquence possible que des utilisations injustifiées échappent à toute sanction. Dès lors, les victimes seraient privées de toute espérance quant à la manifestation de la vérité et tous les dysfonctionnements actuels seraient légitimés.)”Read statement
Stéphane Peu opposes France's firearm-use presumption
“an inequality before the law (Translated from French. Original: une inégalité devant la loi)”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Sebaihi says the bill reverses the burden of proof
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/1383-sebaihi-opposed-the-proposal-saying-it-reverses-the
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Sebaihi says the bill reverses the burden of proof". First published: 2026-09-22. Last updated: 2026-10-07. https://disputeindex.com/events/1383-sebaihi-opposed-the-proposal-saying-it-reverses-the