"The Distinguished" Court Issues Ruling in the "Al-Muwaisiri Fingerprint" Case: Three Years Imprisonment for Muslim Al-Barak and Salem Al-Namlan; Exemption from Punishment for 16 Defendants, Including Former MPs and Activists
Kuwait officials issued the ruling today in the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation in the case involving 18 defendants, including former MPs, for posting tweets violating the law regarding the refusal of former MP Shuaib Al-Muwaisiri to provide his biometric fingerprint. The defendants claimed that he was prevented from entering the country due to the fingerprint procedures.
The court ordered the annulment of the acquittal verdict for former MPs Musallam Al-Barrak and Salem Al-Namlan, and sentenced them both to three years in prison with hard labor, given that they had previously been convicted by a final, binding criminal judgment. Meanwhile, the court decided to suspend sentencing for 16 other defendants, obliging them to provide a guarantee of good conduct for two years with a bail of 1,000 dinars. These defendants are: Adel Al-Dumai, Mohammed Muassid Al-Dosari, Osama Al-Zaid, Shuaib Ali Shaaban, Mohammed Jawhar Hayah, Madi Al-Hajri, Falah Al-Hajri, Hamad Al-Madlaj, Mohammed Haif Al-Mutairi, Saud Al-Asfour Al-Hajri, Khalid Munis Al-Otaibi, Mohammed Al-Raqib, Badr Al-Dahoum, Ali Radan Al-Otaibi, Nami Harab Al-Mutairi, and Nasser Mohammed Al-Mutairi.
Exceeding the bounds of criticism
The reasoning behind the court’s verdict stated that the phrases and posts in question exceeded the limits of permissible criticism and went beyond expressing opinions to disseminating news and rumors likely to weaken the state’s prestige and harm its national interests, provided that the elements of the crime and criminal intent were present.
The reasoning clarified that the crime of broadcasting false news, statements, or rumors abroad is not established merely by publishing information or opinions; rather, it must be proven that what was published was false, and that it could weaken financial confidence in the state or its prestige, or harm the country’s national interests, in addition to the presence of criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
It emphasized that permissible criticism does not extend to distorting news, reporting facts incorrectly, or taking them out of context, in a manner that misleads public opinion and undermines trust in the state and its institutions.
Fingerprint procedures
The court noted that the posts included phrases related to the country’s internal situation and the Ministry of Interior’s procedures regarding the biometric fingerprint and entry into the country, with some of them depicting events contrary to reality, thereby exceeding the limits of criticism and reaching the level of acts punishable by law.
It explained that the published content included attributing false accusations to the relevant authorities within the Ministry of Interior, including allegations that they violated constitutional provisions and prevented a Kuwaiti citizen from returning to the State of Kuwait. Such actions could weaken the state’s prestige, reputation, and standing abroad, and harm its national interests.
The reasoning of the verdict pointed out that the court was satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution, including what was posted on the defendants’ accounts on the social media platform “X,” as well as what was established by the State Security and Investigations Department officer, and the photographic images extracted from the accounts. It concluded that the charges against the defendants were proven.
Criminal intent
The court addressed the issue of criminal intent in its reasoning, explaining that justice, while examining the elements of criminal intent as a pillar of the crime, investigates whether the actions aimed at spreading news likely to propagate rumors and chaos, destabilize the system, obstruct security procedures and duties, and disrupt national interests.
Regarding the defendants for whom sentencing was suspended, the court considered that the circumstances of the case, their ages, and the surrounding circumstances gave reason to believe that they would not reoffend. As for Al-Barrak and Al-Namlan, the court took into account their previous conviction by a final, binding criminal judgment, and concluded by sentencing each of them to imprisonment, ordering the confiscation of the devices seized and used in the crime, and the deletion and destruction of the tweets in question.
