While Julian Assange may have won his freedom in the summer of 2024 [1], and was even formally recognised by the Council of Europe as a political prisoner [2], our understanding of what occurred during his prolonged legal battle(s) remains quite incomplete.
That’s why Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi [3] has spent the last decade pursuing freedom of information (FOI) requests and appeals to recover correspondence between the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and authorities in the United States, Sweden, and Ecuador regarding the Assange case. Their responses may shed light on what part political biases and influences may have played, and what aberrations in due-process occurred.
Ms. Maurizi’s book detailing her work, originally published in Italian [4] and then translated to English [5], has recently also been published in German: “Secret Power” [6].
While some actions of these states have been exposed over these many years – willingly through disclosures, or unwillingly through leaks and acts of whistleblowing – we are still in the dark, especially when compared with the scale of documentation and knowledge we suspect remains buried to this day.
During the Chaos Communication Congresses in 2019 [7], 2020 [8], and 2021 [9], WHS board member Andy Müller-Maguhn spoke about surveillance tactics and operations that, during that time, went from merely ‘alleged’ and ‘suspected’ to seriously and formally investigated matters of a criminal court in Spain, a lawsuit in a U.S. district court [10], and witness testimony [11][12] in the British courts. Not long before Mr. Assange had his asylum revoked and was arrested by British authorities in April 2019, a conspiracy between Ecuadorian authorities, U.S. intelligence services, and the Spanish security company ‘UC Global’ was uncovered, with the objective of surveilling Mr. Assange and his family, lawyers, doctors, colleagues, journalists and many other visitors for years. The former owner & CEO of UC Global is now being investigated „for allegedly falsifying official documents and committing procedural fraud“ [13]. Due to U.S. intelligence repeatedly invoking ‘state secrets privilege’ or blatantly turning up their noses at judicial requests, attempts to bring these actors to justice largely remain at a stand-still.
Acting WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, in a recent interview with Big Brother Watch, said this decade-long ordeal of coordinated surveillance and financial censorship was „unprecedented in so many ways“ [14].
However, there has been a positive development with respect to the U.K.: in accordance with an order issued by the London First-tier Tribunal [15] on 2 January, the CPS authorities were required to “confirm whether or not the service holds information on how, when and why they deleted crucial documents on the Julian Assange case and, if they do hold such information, they must either supply it to us or deny it to us, identifying on what grounds the information is being withheld” [16]. The deadline was 21 February 2025.
Ms. Maurizi and her lawyers have since received a response as ordered, and she has published an article [17] summarising the findings, particularly concerning the email account records of lead CPS lawyer Paul Close, who „advised Swedish prosecutors not to interview Assange in London“ and „helped create the legal paralysis that kept Assange arbitrarily detained“ for over a decade. The CPS has disclosed a so-called ‚leavers process document‘, but they have not released any metadata regarding the creation or modifications to this document, making it difficult to verify whether it was a genuine procedural document. A leavers process document is a checklist or protocol for transitioning a person out of an organisation, including the handling of accounts and credentials.
If the closure of Mr. Close’s account followed standard procedure as they claim, then Ms. Maurizi asks, „why did the CPS refuse to provide information for years? And why did it take two rulings by two judges to search for such information?“
Everyone should understand that just because the Assange case is closed, that does not necessarily mean the operations have ceased. Journalists should make more FOIA requests. Governments who have an interest in defending their citizens against such foreign interference to suppress constitutionally protected activities [18], should consider taking steps to protect those who have had their rights violated.
The Wau Holland Foundation supports freedom of information and transparency initiatives [19], as well as moral courage [20]. We hope that this Tribunal decision will be another step forward in finally bringing to light what happened over the last fifteen years, particularly so that civil society may learn how to better support and defend the next Julian Assange. As Ken Loach wrote in the foreword of Ms. Maurizi’s book:
“At the heart of this story is the terrible price paid by one man, treated with extreme cruelty, because he laid bare the reality of unaccountable power hidden by an appearance of democracy.”
[1] https://wauland.de/en/news/2024/06/julian-assange-free/
[2] https://wauland.de/en/news/2024/10/resolution-of-the-council-of-europe-about-the-assange/
[3] https://stefaniamaurizi.it/en-idx.html
[4] https://www.chiarelettere.it/libro/il-potere-segreto-stefania-maurizi-9788832963878.html
[5] https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745347615/secret-power/
[6] https://shop.papyrossa.de/Maurizi-Stefania-Secret-Power
[8] https://media.ccc.de/v/rc3-11512-cia_vs_wikileaks
[9] https://media.ccc.de/v/rc3-2021-chaoszone-409-when-wikileaks-bu
[10] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64891487/kunstler-v-central-intelligence-agency/
[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RP_p89rI6E
[18] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/31/assa-j31.html
[19] https://wauland.de/en/projects/enduring-freedom-of-information/
