The Saudi justice minister Dr Muhammad al-'Issa was in London in late April. But, at the last minute, he cancelled a meeting with interested organisations and academics that I was to attend because – we were told – he preferred to meet only with the British government. We had many questions about the rule of law and reform of the Saudi judiciary to ask the minister, who enjoys a reputation as a progressive-minded official. Most of all, we wanted to hear the justice minister's response to why the government is using a new counter-terrorism court to try peaceful dissidents and human rights activists.
In 2007, King Abdullah bin Abd al-'Aziz announced reform of the judiciary; making it marginally more independent, setting up specialised courts and investing millions in training, infrastructure and administrative upgrades. In late 2008, the Interior Ministry finally decided to refer to court thousands of security suspects detained for years without charge or trial. King Abdullah appointed al-'Issa as justice minister, in February 2009.
Al-'Issa's ministry that year had a hand in setting up the counter-terrorism court. It was called the Specialised Criminal Court and was furnished with hand-picked judges. But there was no statute defining its jurisdiction or procedures. The Justice Ministry has administrative and financial authority over the entire justice system, and a ministry official sits on the 10-member Supreme Council of Justice – responsible for establishing courts and appointing judges. Since its establishment, the counter-terrorism court has tried hundreds of suspects related to plots or operations against government ministries and oil installations – foreigners and Saudis that have cost dozens of people their lives since 2003. The court convicted almost everyone it tried.
Since early 2011 – the court has also been trying, and convicting, people who criticise government policies and religious institutions or those who advocated greater respect for the rule of law. In April, the court sentenced two people to prison for peaceful activism. And the trials of at least four others are in process, simply for exercising their rights to freedom of expression. The court sentenced Muhammad al-Bajadi, an activist, to four years in prison for "establishing a human rights organisation".
Yusuf al-Ahmad, a religious academic, was sentenced to five years for his video on Twitter which was critical of the detention without charge or trial of security suspects. This continues despite the recent reforms and the establishment of the counter-terrorism court. The charges included online publishing that "diminishes the prestige of the state and its security and judicial institutions". Al-Bajadi's organisation had filed dozens of petitions in court against the Interior Ministry for detaining suspects for years beyond the six-month legal limit on pre-trial detention, prescribed in the 2002 Law of Criminal Procedure.
Charges in the special court against other peaceful critics include "distorting the kingdom's reputation" – against a teacher, Khalid al-Juhani, for speaking to the BBC about democracy in March 2011; "not obeying religious scholars" – against a lawyer Mubarak bin Zu'air for peacefully gathering in front of the Interior Ministry in March 2011, to press for the trial or release of arbitrary detainees; "impugning the fairness and integrity of officials in government agencies without sound proof" – against a tribal leader Mikhlif al-Shammari for being critical of corruption and religious extremism online; "withdrawing allegiance to the ruler" – against a rights activist Fadhil al-Manasif for trying to secure the release of two elderly people taken hostage by the security services to get their wanted sons to surrender – and so on.
In August 2011, the text of a Draft Counter-terrorism Law was leaked. It revealed a plan that would impose draconian sentences for being critical of the ruler or religious officials. It has not yet been finalised. These charges clearly violate the right to freedom of expression and do not belong in court, let alone one supposedly tasked with adjudicating guilt for acts of political violence. In addition, using these courts to go after political opponents undermines any claim to legitimacy the counterterrorism court may have. The Supreme Council for the Judiciary should abolish it and focus on ensuring fair trial rights in the regular courts.
Summing up the justice minister's visit to London, the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom Prince Mohammad bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz claimed that the trip helped "to correct misconceptions about some of draft laws in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the belief that they will be used to suppress freedom of expression and to clarify untrue issues being circulated in some media such as detention without a trial". It is a pity that the Saudi delegation shunned a chance to meet with interested groups to face questions about the role of the counter-terrorism court in suppressing protected speech. Judging from his public remarks – the British minister for the Middle East and North Africa Alistair Burt raised concerns about women's rights, the death penalty and the situation of migrant workers. But he did not, it appears, raise any concerns about the deeply-flawed application of the rule of law to persecute peaceful dissidents.
*Christoph Wilcke is senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch*
