In a widely circulated Ramadan TV appearance in 2025, Saudi Minister of State and Cabinet Member Mohammed Al Sheikh claimed that “anyone in the Kingdom, including ordinary citizens, can file a lawsuit against anyone—even the King—except those with international immunity or bilateral protection.”
At face value, this sounds like a progressive, rule-of-law statement. But to anyone living in Saudi Arabia or observing the country closely, it rings hollow—a textbook example of how authoritarian regimes use legal rhetoric to mask deep repression.
Contents
A Beautiful Statement, Brutal Reality
Al Sheikh’s statement gives the impression of an open judicial system—one where citizens can pursue justice, even against the most powerful. But he left out some essential truths:
- Can a Saudi citizen really file a complaint against the Crown Prince without risking arrest?
- Can someone criticize state policy without being charged with “undermining national unity”?
- Would any judge rule against a senior royal or high-ranking official and expect to keep their job—or freedom?
The answer is clear to all Saudis: Absolutely not. Such a move would be seen not as a legal act—but as a provocation punishable by harassment, imprisonment, or worse.
Free Speech in a Kingdom Where Words Are a Crime
In Saudi Arabia, freedom of speech is not just restricted—it’s criminalized. Citizens risk arrest for a tweet, a private conversation, or even silent support for a cause deemed “sensitive.”
Dozens of peaceful individuals languish in prison with vague charges like “spreading false information” or “insulting state institutions.” The promise of legal recourse rings especially hollow for families of prisoners of conscience.
What Happens If You Sue a Royal?
Let’s say, hypothetically, a citizen takes Al Sheikh’s words seriously and attempts to sue a senior official—or even the King. What happens?
- Security agencies would likely monitor the individual immediately.
- They could be summoned, questioned, and quietly threatened.
- If they persist, charges like “defaming the state” or “disrupting national security” could follow.
- At best, their complaint is ignored. At worst, they lose their job, face travel bans, or end up in prison.
It’s a legal illusion—one where citizens are told they have rights, only to discover those rights vanish when they try to use them.
Is the Judiciary Truly Independent?
Despite lofty promises of judicial reform, Saudi courts remain deeply tied to the executive branch. Judges are appointed and removed by royal decree. The so-called “Board of Grievances,” tasked with hearing complaints against government entities, almost never rules against the Interior Ministry or Royal Court—and when it does, verdicts are often overturned or ignored.
No Constitution, Just Tools of Repression
Saudi Arabia lacks a clear, written constitution defining rights. Instead, it enforces vague, overbroad laws like the Cybercrime Law, which are routinely used to punish dissent.
Criticism of the government—however peaceful—is often equated with terrorism. There is no real legal protection for speech, only a carefully maintained illusion of accountability.
“No One Is Above the Law”—Except the Law Itself
Minister Al Sheikh’s remarks are just one more entry in a long history of deceptive rhetoric. If no one is above the law, why are there no lawsuits against corrupt officials, unlawful arrests, or torture? Why do whistleblowers disappear while abusers rise in power?
In Saudi Arabia, law doesn’t serve justice—it shields the regime. The idea that “anyone can file a lawsuit” is a public relations stunt, not a lived reality. It’s a TV soundbite meant to distract from a system that silences anyone who dares speak truth to power.
