In one of the strongest communications issued in recent years, four United Nations Special Rapporteurs delivered a direct rebuke to Saudi authorities over what they described as the arbitrary use of counterterrorism legislation to suppress human rights defenders. The case at the center of the warning is emblematic rather than exceptional: the retrial of activist Mohammed al-Bajadi and his subsequent 25-year prison sentence following years of arrests, prosecutions, and detention. The message does not focus solely on the severity of a single verdict. It challenges the legal architecture itself, arguing that the concept of “national security” has been expanded to criminalize peaceful expression and civic engagement.
Al-Bajadi, a founding member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), has faced repeated legal action since 2012. In 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that his imprisonment fell within categories of arbitrary detention linked to the exercise of freedom of expression and assembly. Although he was later released, he was rearrested in 2018 in what experts interpret as a continuation of punitive measures. His retrial and the imposition of a new 25-year sentence raise a fundamental legal question: does this constitute legitimate judicial process, or the recycling of punishment under a different procedural form? The Special Rapporteurs argued that revisiting charges for conduct previously adjudicated contravenes the principle of double jeopardy, a core safeguard in modern criminal law.
Central to the controversy is the Specialized Criminal Court, originally established to handle terrorism cases. Over time, it has drawn repeated criticism from UN bodies for adjudicating cases involving peaceful activists. The recent communication again questioned the court’s independence from the executive branch. Among the alleged violations cited by experts are secret hearings, denial of adequate access to legal counsel, reliance on undisclosed evidence, and insufficient clarity regarding the charges. If substantiated, such practices erode the foundations of fair trial guarantees and convert a counterterrorism tribunal into a mechanism of political containment.
The broader concern lies in the wording of Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism legislation. The Rapporteurs described its provisions as overly broad and vague, enabling authorities to stretch the definition of terrorism to encompass conduct that falls squarely within peaceful advocacy or documentation of human rights abuses. When legal categories become elastic, the boundary between security threats and dissent collapses. The risk is not abstract. Once peaceful expression can be framed as destabilizing or harmful to public order, the legal threshold for prosecution lowers dramatically.
International law recognizes the legitimacy of counterterrorism measures. However, such measures must comply with the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination. These are not aspirational standards; they are structural constraints intended to prevent the securitization of political disagreement. In al-Bajadi’s case, the Rapporteurs concluded that a 25-year sentence for activities linked to advocacy and expression is grossly disproportionate and indicative of an escalating posture toward civil society actors.
The UN experts also raised concerns about the use of “rehabilitation” or counseling centers and administrative restrictions as forms of de facto detention outside effective judicial oversight. Even after formal sentences conclude, individuals may remain subject to restrictive measures that blur the line between punishment and indefinite supervision. Such mechanisms create a gray zone in which formal release does not equate to full restoration of liberty. This layered system of penalties raises broader questions about accountability and the limits of executive discretion.
The communication invoked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Arab Charter on Human Rights, underscoring Saudi Arabia’s obligations as a member of the United Nations and a party to regional instruments. The right to liberty and security, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the guarantee of a fair trial are not optional commitments. The tension arises from the gap between these formal commitments and recurring cases that suggest continued contraction of civic space.
The al-Bajadi case is therefore not an isolated legal episode but a reflection of a wider dynamic in the relationship between the Saudi state and independent civic actors. When counterterrorism laws are employed against peaceful defenders, the definition of “threat” expands to include dissent itself. The legitimacy of security policy depends on adherence to law and human rights safeguards. In their absence, counterterrorism ceases to function as protection and becomes a deterrent instrument against criticism.
The UN communication places Saudi Arabia at a clear crossroads. It must either reassess the legislative framework and judicial practices that enable the criminalization of peaceful activism, or continue along a trajectory that draws sustained international scrutiny over the conflation of security with silence.
