From Staff Reports

SPARTANBURG, S.C. — The assault case against Spartanburg County Councilman Monier “Mo” Abusaft was dismissed by a judge who ruled he was acting in self-defense under South Carolina’s “Stand Your Ground” law, AI Overview stated on June 5.

Specifically, a judge ruled in favor of Abusaft’s claim that assault charges against him were unwarranted after a physical dispute with a local political activist three months ago.

On May 29, the councilman — Monier Abusaft, “an attorney who is also a candidate for a state House seat in the fast-approaching Democratic primary — shared with The Charleston Post and Courier correspondence in which the judge in his case said he would soon issue a ruling that Abusaft acted in self-defense,” the newspaper noted.

Also confirming the settlement of the case is Greenville television station FOX Carolina, reported on June 2 that a “case against Spartanburg County Councilman Monier Abusaft is now being dismissed.” 

Abusaft was charged with third-degree assault and battery after an alleged incident at the University of South Carolina Upstate. 

According to an incident report, campus police were called to a disturbance at the University Readiness Center on Feb. 28 during the Black History Month Festival hosted by NAACP Spartanburg.

The report said the alleged victim, who is also black, claimed Abusaft assaulted and choked him. Abusaft has denied the allegations and previously said he acted in self-defense. His defense team also argued self-defense under South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground law in court records.

Abusaft appeared in a criminal motion hearing in May that lasted nearly seven hours. No action was taken at the end of that hearing, leaving the decision in the judge’s hands. Since then, a judge has agreed to dismiss the charge.

Following are the backstory and events that led to the dismissal include the following details:

• The incident: The charge stemmed from an altercation in February at a Black History Bowl event held at USC Upstate’s University Readiness Center. The “alleged victim” (identified as Antonio Tanner) accused Abusaft of choking him and sought an arrest warrant.

• The defense: Abusaft, who acted as his own co-counsel during a seven-hour court hearing, argued self-defense. He testified that Tanner had accosted him, used racial slurs and expletives, invaded his personal space, placed a hand on his shoulder, and forcibly kissed him.

• Video and witness evidence: Surveillance footage played in court corroborated that Tanner made physical contact first by brushing against Abusaft and later kissing him. Abusaft allegedly reacted by pinning Tanner against a wall to distance himself. Tanner invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify at the hearing.

• The ruling: Citing the surveillance footage and the facts of the case, the judge concluded that Tanner was the aggressor who repeatedly entered Abusaft’s personal space, granting the motion to dismiss.

• Previous charges: This was the second assault case involving Abusaft in recent years. In a 2025 incident — labeled the “garbage can dispute” — he was charged with simple assault after a property dispute, but that charge was later dismissed when witnesses provided false and conflicting accounts.

In the aftrmath of Abusaft’s latest assault hearing and case dismissal, critics of the dismissal of the recent assault case against Abusaft have voiced and written an argument that he receives preferential treatment because of his political status, that elected officials should be held to higher behavioral standards, and that his recurring legal issues point to a pattern of concerning conduct.

Among the specific reactions and criticisms from the public and political observers are the following:

• Double standards in the justice system: Many local critics on social media have expressed frustration that an ordinary citizen would likely face stricter bail requirements or harsher penalties for similar allegations, accusing the Spartanburg justice system of showing favoritism to a prominent county official.

• Behavioral expectations for leaders: Detractors argue that even if Abusaft was acting under South Carolina’s “Stand Your Ground” law — as the judge indicated — an elected official should de-escalate conflicts rather than engaging in physical altercations.

• A pattern of cconduct: Critics highlight that this is the second assault charge filed against Abusaft in less than two years. Although the prior 2025 case (involving a dispute over a trash can) was also dismissed, the consecutive arrests have led opponents to call for his resignation, censure, or electoral defeat.

• Transparency concerns: During the early stages of the arrest, local watchdogs and media outlets criticized both the USC Upstate police and the Spartanburg Police Department for attempting to withhold key details by releasing heavily redacted police reports to the public.The judge in the case ruled that surveillance footage and witness testimony showed the alleged victim instigated the physical contact and aggressively invaded Abusaft’s personal space, thereby justifying the dismissal under self-defense laws.