"Discrimination": Flashy and vague phrases... do not conceal criminal intent
- Lifting of the suspension of sentence for two former MPs, sentencing them to three years and two years in prison, respectively, on charges of challenging the Amir’s prerogatives.
- Sentencing a former MP to one year in prison with hard labor on charges of insulting judges of the Constitutional Court.
- Sentencing a Twitter user to three years in prison on charges of spreading false news and violating his undertaking.
- Details of the “Basma Al-Muwaisir” case:
- The court investigates the objectives behind what was published, piercing through “loose” or “flowery” expressions that conceal malicious intent.
- Permissible criticism is merely expressing an opinion on a matter or action, without involving the dissemination of news, statements, or false rumors.
- Fifteen defendants were deemed by the court, based on the circumstances of the case and their ages, unlikely to reoffend.
- A three-year prison sentence for two former MPs in the case, due to prior final convictions for felony offenses.
The Court of Cassation, in judicial rulings issued in several cases, established decisive principles regarding the boundaries of freedom of expression and permissible criticism, affirming that “flowery” or “loose” expressions do not obscure criminal intent when they involve publishing false or biased news likely to harm the country’s internal stability and national interests.
The First Circuit at the Court of Cassation, under the presidency of Advisor Sultan Nuh Burasli, issued rulings in several cases involving charges of spreading false news about the country’s internal situation, challenging the rights and prerogatives of the Amir, and insulting the judiciary.
The court annulled the acquittal rulings issued in their favor and convicted them, opting to suspend sentencing while requiring each to provide a written undertaking accompanied by a financial guarantee of 1,000 dinars, committing to good conduct for two years.
The court also annulled the acquittals of Salem Al-Namlan and Muslem Al-Barak, reconvicting them and sentencing each to three years in prison on the grounds that they are “recidivists.”
In its reasoning, the court stated that it was “assured by the evidence of proof (..) due to its soundness, absence of any flaw, mutual corroboration, and sufficiency in content and effect to substantiate the charges against the defendants and prove their guilt,” noting that they published “false and biased news and rumors via their personal accounts on the social media platform (X) regarding the internal situation in the country (..), which weakened the state’s prestige and reputation, and demonstrated intent to undermine the state’s prestige, reputation, and standing abroad, thereby harming the state’s national interests. They described an unrealistic reality within the country, such as preventing citizens from returning to Kuwait, especially since the news published by each defendant was not isolated from the circumstances surrounding the case under review, its context, or the campaign that revolved around it.”
The court highlighted the element of criminal intent as a pillar of the crime, which becomes evident to justice “even if concealed, draped in flowery expressions or cloaked in statements that appear compassionate on the surface but harbor torment within,” affirming that it “investigates and probes whether (the expressions and posts) seek or aim to spread news likely to propagate rumors, incite chaos, destabilize the system, obstruct security procedures and duties, and disrupt national interests through devious and deceitful means, hiding behind loose expressions or using words with multiple connotations—‘a bundle of sticks that carries ruin within.’”
It emphasized that “the claim that these writings constitute permissible criticism does not diminish the gravity of the situation,” because once the criminal intent required for the offense stipulated in Article 15 of Law No. 31 of 1971, for which the defendants were convicted, is established, “there is no room to speak of permissible criticism, which is merely expressing an opinion on a matter or action without involving the dissemination of false or biased news, statements, or rumors regarding the country’s internal situation. If this limit is exceeded—as in the present case—punishment is warranted.”
The court further noted that, regarding sentencing for the 15 defendants, it “believes, based on the circumstances of the case and the defendants’ ages, that they are unlikely to reoffend. Consequently, the court has decided to refrain from imposing punishment on them for the charges brought against them, in accordance with Article 81 of the Penal Code.”
It added that regarding the two defendants, Salem Al-Namlan and Muslem Al-Barak, they are subject to previous final and binding felony convictions. Therefore, the court sentenced each of them to three years’ imprisonment with hard labor.
On a separate note, the Court of Cassation annulled the Court of Appeal’s ruling that suspended the execution of the sentence against former MP Moudhi Al-Sayer, and re-sentenced him to three years in prison on charges of questioning the rights of the Amir of Kuwait and interfering with his authorities, as well as disseminating biased and harmful news affecting the country’s internal situation and interests.
The court also annulled the Court of Appeal’s ruling suspending the sentence against former MP Saleh Mohammed Al-Mulla, and re-sentenced him to two years in prison for questioning the Amir’s authorities and rights.
Furthermore, the Court of Cassation sentenced former MP Bader Al-Dahoum to one year in prison with hard labor for insulting the judges of the Constitutional Court during an election seminar.
The Court of Cassation also annulled the ruling dismissing the case against tweeter Ahmed Al-Salimi due to his breach of undertaking, and re-sentenced him to three years in prison for spreading false news and harming the country’s internal situation.
