“Tamayoz” Court Rules to Revoke Immunity of Former MPs... Sentences Include Exemption from Punishment and Imprisonment for Others

- The phrases and expressions constituted a blatant aggression that inflicted the most severe damage on the state’s entity and its national interests.

- They deliberately sought to undermine the state’s authority and portray its sovereign institutions in a manner contrary to the Constitution.

- Lies open the door to external interventions and criticisms that affect political and social stability.

- Criminal intent becomes evident to justice, even if it is concealed and shielded by glittering rhetoric.

- The obstruction of national interests is concealed behind vague phrases and ambiguous words that harbor corruption.

- Permissible criticism is merely the expression of an opinion regarding a matter or action, without involving the dissemination of news, statements, or false rumors.

The First Circuit at the Court of Cassation, presided over by Advisor Sultan Al-Bursali, issued judicial rulings on Sunday in several cases concerning the dissemination of false news about the country’s internal situation, specifically regarding the case of former MP Shuaib Al-Muwaisri’s entry into the country.

Regarding these 15 individuals, the court annulled the acquittal rulings previously issued against them and sentenced them to suspension of punishment, requiring each to provide a guarantee accompanied by a financial bail of 1,000 dinars, committing to maintain good conduct for two years.

The court also annulled the acquittals of Salem Al-Namlan and Muslim Al-Barak, and re-convicted them, sentencing each to three years in prison due to their status as recidivists.

In the reasoning behind its ruling, the court stated that “the phrases and expressions written by the defendants (as charged by the prosecution) in their tweets (..) exceeded the boundaries of permissible criticism, constituting a blatant aggression that inflicted severe damage on the state’s entity and its national interests. They deliberately sought to undermine the state’s authority and portray its sovereign institutions, including the Ministry of Interior, as acting contrary to the Constitution and outside the legal framework, which could shake citizens’ and residents’ confidence in the country’s legal and security system.”

The court noted that “the impact of this conduct did not remain confined to the local sphere; rather, it extended to tarnish the reputation and international standing of the State of Kuwait. These lies provided fertile ground for external reports and international organizations, which might use these posts as a basis to portray the state—contrary to reality—as tyrannical toward its citizens’ rights. This opens the door to external interventions and criticisms that affect political and social stability.”

The court also referred to Article 15 of Law No. 31 of 1970 amending certain provisions of Penal Code No. 16 of 1960, which stipulates that “any Kuwaiti or resident in Kuwait who willfully disseminates abroad false or biased news, statements, or rumors regarding the country’s internal situation, thereby weakening financial confidence in the state or its authority and prestige, or engages in any activity likely to harm the country’s national interests, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than three years.”

It further highlighted Article 1/70, paragraph (a), of Law No. 37 of 2014 establishing the Communications and Information Technology Regulatory Authority, which states: “1. Whoever willfully abuses telephone communication means shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and a fine not exceeding 2,000 Kuwaiti dinars nor less than 200 dinars, or with one of these penalties... In all cases, the court shall order the confiscation of communication devices and means, as well as anything else used in the commission of the crime, and shall also order the deletion and destruction of images and video clips obtained thereby.”

The court affirmed that it “is reassured by the corroborating evidence (..) due to the soundness of its sources, the absence of any suspicion, the mutual reinforcement among the pieces of evidence, and their sufficiency in substance and effect to substantiate the validity of the charges against the defendants and to establish their guilt,” noting that they disseminated “false, biased news and rumors via their personal accounts on the social media platform (X) regarding the internal situation in the country (..), which would undermine the state’s authority and prestige. It was established that there was intent to tarnish the state’s authority, prestige, and reputation abroad, and to harm the state’s national interests, as they portrayed an unrealistic reality within the country, including claims that citizens were prevented from returning to Kuwait. Moreover, the news published by each defendant was not isolated from the circumstances surrounding the incident under review, nor from its context and the campaign that revolved around it.”

The court highlighted the element of criminal intent as a constitutive element of the offense, which becomes evident to justice “even if it is concealed, masked by flashy rhetoric, or cloaked in statements that appear compassionate on the surface but harbor torment within,” emphasizing that it “investigates and probes whether the (statements and posts) aimed to spread news likely to propagate rumors, incite chaos, destabilize order, obstruct security measures and duties, and disrupt national interests through devious and deceitful means, hiding behind vague expressions or shielding themselves behind words with multiple interpretations, carrying within them destructive implications.”

It stressed that “the arguments raised by the defendants—that these writings constitute permissible criticism—do not diminish the established criminal intent in the offense stipulated in Article 15 of Law No. 31 of 1971, for which the defendants were convicted. Consequently, there is no room to invoke permissible criticism, which merely involves expressing an opinion on a matter or action without disseminating false or biased news, statements, or rumors regarding the country’s internal situation. If this boundary is crossed—as in the present case—punishment is warranted.”

The court stated that it had consistently held that the defendants “committed the two offenses in the manner and description outlined in the indictment report (..), necessitating their conviction to the fullest extent according to the provisions of the charges,” noting that “the court of first instance deviated from this view; thus, it erred, and the appealed judgment must be annulled.”

At the same time, the court pointed out that regarding punishment for the 15 defendants, it “believes, based on the circumstances of the case and the defendants’ ages, that they are unlikely to reoffend; therefore, the court decides to refrain from imposing a penalty on them for the charges 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 recidivists, having been previously sentenced by a final and binding judgment on July 8, 2017, to a felony penalty in Case No. 946/2011, registered under No. 283/2011 in the Capital Prosecution’s Criminal Court records. Accordingly, the court ordered imprisonment for each of them for three years with hard labor, applied the provision of Article 84/1 of the Penal Code concerning recidivism, confiscated the seized devices, and ordered the deletion and destruction of the tweets at the heart of the case.

The Court of Cassation annulled the Court of Appeal’s ruling suspending the execution of the sentence against former MP Mubarak Al-Sayer, and ordered his re-imprisonment for three years on charges of disparaging the rights and prerogatives of His Highness the Amir and interfering with his authority, as well as broadcasting biased and harmful news damaging the country’s internal interests and stability. The court also annulled the Court of Appeal’s decision to suspend the sentence against former MP Saleh Mohammed Al-Mulla, ordering his re-imprisonment for two years on charges of disparaging the rights and prerogatives of His Highness the Amir.

The Court of Cassation sentenced former MP Badr Al-Dahoum to one year of imprisonment with hard labor for insulting judges of the Constitutional Court during an election seminar. The Court of Cassation had previously sentenced Al-Dahoum to one year of imprisonment, suspended pending bail of 5,000 dinars.

The Court of Cassation annulled the dismissal of the case against Ahmed Khalid Al-Shalimi due to his breach of a commitment, and ordered his re-imprisonment for three years on charges of spreading false news and harming the country’s internal stability. The Court of Cassation had previously released Ahmed Al-Shalimi on bail of 500 dinars after charging him with broadcasting false news and leaking cabinet decisions across all his accounts, as well as disseminating government news without obtaining the required authorization.