Judgment of the Swiss Court in defamation case againt the Director of Civitas Maxima now available in English
UPDATE – Since our December publication, an English translation of the judgment of the Swiss Court recognizing the Director of Civitas Maxima as a victim of defamation is now available.
You can read the judgment here.
Disclaimer: This is not an official translation and is provided by Civitas Maxima for informational purposes only. In case of any inconsistency, the French version shall prevail.
On May 27, 2025, the criminal division of the Jura-Bernois Seeland Regional Court in Switzerland found Mr. Alan White, a U.S. national, guilty of acts of defamation committed in July 2021 against the Director of Civitas Maxima, Alain Werner.
On November 26, 2025, the same Court issued a 38-page written judgment describing in detail the Court’s reasoning. Alan White has appealed this judgment, and the appeal proceedings are ongoing.
The case relates to an email sent in July 2021 to a Swiss lawyer, in which Alan White essentially claimed that Alain Werner and Hassan Bility, Director of the Global Justice and Research Project (GJRP) based in Monrovia, had earned millions of euros by pursuing criminal cases against individuals from Liberia. The email further stated that these cases were allegedly suspicious because they were based on false testimony obtained in exchange for various benefits, such as sums of money or witness protection in Europe. Alain Werner, having become aware of this communication in January 2023 during the appeal proceedings of Alieu Kosiah before the Swiss Federal Criminal Court, filed a criminal complaint for defamation against Alan White in Switzerland in April 2023.
In its November 2025 judgment, the Court recognized the existence of a press campaign aimed at discrediting Civitas Maxima and its partner organization in Liberia. It found “a body of converging indications capable of lending credence to the thesis according to which Mr. Bility and the complainant, Mr. Werner, were the targets of a campaign of denigration.” Referring to various newspaper articles, the Court explained that: “(…) the clearly accusatory and outrageous style of those articles, in addition to being repetitive, also clearly spoke in favor of a campaign of denigration. It can be observed that this did not cease after the appeal judgment of the FCC (Federal Criminal Court)” of June 1, 2023.
The Court then considered that Alain Werner, who testified on May 27, 2025 before the Court in his capacity as complainant, had been credible in his statements: “Ultimately, the statement appears rich in detail, individualized, consistent, and coherent. The complainant carefully distinguishes between facts personally experienced and indirect information; his behavior is natural and his statements are free from signs of fabrication. All of this allows the conclusion that the account is credible and may be relied upon as a reliable basis in the assessment of the evidence.” By contrast, the statements of Mr. White—who did not attend either of the two trial hearings—did not convince the Court: “In summary, the defendant’s allegations, whether in his disputed email or subsequently in his few written responses of 27.05.2025 submitted to the Court, are devoid of credibility.”
The Court then considered, on the basis of the facts of the case, that Mr. White had “an objective interest in diminishing the reputation, and consequently the influence, of Civitas Maxima, by alleging in particular facts detrimental to honor against the complainant, who is its director.”
With regard to the offense of defamation, the Court held that the besmirching of Alain Werner’s honor and the communication to a third party had been established. Alan White alleged that Mr. Werner had made “extremely serious accusations based on false testimony before judicial authorities capable of imposing heavy sentences.” This alleged conduct by Alain Werner was therefore “very serious, deeply offensive, and portrays the complainant as despicable,” all the more so because, according to these allegations, Mr. Werner would have made “millions of euros through this means and would therefore be driven by greed.” There is therefore no doubt, according to the Court, that what Alan White wrote about Mr. Werner’s alleged conduct was harmful to his honor.
Under Swiss law, any person accused of defamation may provide exculpatory evidence if that person acted with sufficient grounds and did not act primarily with the intention of speaking ill of another.
On this point, the Court noted that Mr. White had not provided—despite being invited to do so—any evidence before the judges to demonstrate the truthfulness of his accusations against Mr. Werner. According to the judges, Mr. White “acted without regard for the public interest, with the sole aim of speaking ill of the complainant to third parties and spreading rumors harmful to the complainant. Such assertions would be of interest to judicial authorities, but they would have to be substantiated, which was not the case, and the defendant deliberately refrained from making any statements to judicial authorities.”
As for any possible proof of Mr. White’s good faith, the Court noted that the latter “is educated and has worked for the justice system. One may expect him to be able to distinguish between, on the one hand, an established fact of extreme seriousness (…) and, on the other hand, simple vague allegations from few sources but repeated, which have never been recognized by any authority. He should be able to distinguish between an investigation into suspicions and established facts, and to put matters into perspective, if he were acting in good faith.” The Court further added that if Alan White “is so quick to lend an ear to these clearly malicious assertions against the complainant, it is indeed because this aligns with his interests and the interests he represents—which cannot escape him. His conduct and statements are in any event imbued with bad faith.”
The Court therefore concluded that the criminal offense of defamation committed by Alan White against Alain Werner had been established.
Finally, the judges noted that Mr. White “expressed no regret or remorse for having written the email. On the contrary, he denied wrongdoing and stated that the content of the email corresponded to reality. He clearly did not understand the significance of his actions. At no point did the defendant engage in self-reflection. He persisted (…).”
