Paris – The appeals trial in the 2020 murder of Samuel Paty, a French secondary school teacher, is nearing its conclusion. On Saturday, February 28, 2026, the attorneys for two defendants, Naïm Boudaoud and Azim Epsirkhanov, both described as friends of the killer, Abdoullakh Anzorov, pleaded for their clients’ acquittal. A verdict is expected on Monday.
The case centers on the brutal killing of Paty, who was beheaded outside his school in Éragny-sur-Oise, Val-d’Oise, on October 16, 2020. The attack sent shockwaves through France and sparked a national debate about freedom of expression, radicalization and security. The trial has revisited the events leading up to the murder, focusing on the extent to which Boudaoud and Epsirkhanov were aware of Anzorov’s plans.
Defense Argues Lack of Knowledge
For several hours, the defense attorneys argued that Naïm Boudaoud and Azim Epsirkhanov had no knowledge of Anzorov’s terrorist plot. They presented arguments aimed at convincing the judges that their clients were unaware of the impending violence. Martin Mechin, attorney for Naïm Boudaoud, stated, according to reports, “There is still no proof that Naïm Boudaoud could have known about the terrorist project, not even a remote awareness.”
Sarah Valduriez, representing Azim Epsirkhanov, urged the court to “take this case with a cool head, at a distance from emotion.” She argued that Epsirkhanov and Anzorov had little in common and that there was no evidence to suggest Epsirkhanov shared Anzorov’s extremist ideology. Valduriez emphasized that no religious or Samuel Paty-related searches were found on Epsirkhanov’s phone. She also pointed out that the knife purchased in Rouen by the three men was not the weapon used in the murder.
“Azim is the opposite of Anzorov, he has a French girlfriend, he is totally uninterested in current events and religion. He is not radicalized at all. He drinks, he goes out,” Valduriez reportedly told the court.
Prosecution Seeks Lengthy Sentences
The prosecution, however, has taken a firm stance, seeking significant prison terms. On Friday, February 27, 2026, the public prosecutor requested 16 years in prison for both Azim Epsirkhanov and Naïm Boudaoud, along with a requirement for Epsirkhanov to exit French territory and for Boudaoud to undergo socio-judicial monitoring, as reported by France3 Regions.
The prosecution also requested a 20-year sentence for Brahim Chnina and Abdelhakim Sefrioui, who were accused of inciting hatred against Paty. These requests are more severe than those made during the initial trial, where Chnina and Sefrioui were sentenced to 13 and 15 years, respectively, for their ten-day campaign of harassment.
The Role of the Accused
The prosecution’s case hinges on the argument that Boudaoud and Epsirkhanov provided crucial logistical support to Anzorov. Boudaoud, specifically, drove Anzorov near the Collège Bois-d’Aulne in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, where Paty taught. The defense countered that this act alone does not prove knowledge of a planned attack.
The court is grappling with the question of whether the two men were simply misguided friends or active participants in a terrorist act. The defense attorneys argued for a reclassification of the charges, seeking to have the charge of “association of criminals” replace the more serious charge of “association with terrorists.”
The trial has also revisited the events leading up to the murder, including the sharing of a video featuring the father of a student who had initiated a campaign against Paty after the teacher showed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a class on freedom of expression. According to Wikipedia, the student’s father had falsely claimed that Paty had shown “offensive” images, sparking outrage and ultimately contributing to the climate that led to the attack.
The prosecution maintains that the defendants’ actions, including the purchase of a knife and viewing of extremist videos, demonstrate a level of awareness and complicity that warrants a severe punishment. However, the defense insists that these actions, while perhaps ill-advised, do not equate to criminal intent.
With closing arguments complete, the court is now deliberating. The verdict, expected on Monday, will likely have significant implications for the ongoing debate about security, freedom of speech, and the challenges of countering extremism in France. The outcome will also be closely watched by legal experts and those following similar cases across Europe.
With Véronique Arnould and Dounia Sirri
Keep reading
