The Criminal Court decided to postpone the hearing in the case of Sheikh Salem Al-Tawil, who is accused of violating the National Unity Law, until October 13, based on statements attributed to him in December 2024.

In another case, the same court reviewed cases related to joining Hizb ut-Tahrir and financing its activities. In one of these cases, the court sentenced a citizen to five years in prison for financing and joining the party, as well as insulting Jordan, Egypt and Syria. The court is expected to issue its verdict on Sept 29 against the citizen’s brother, who is accused in a similar case -- joining and financing the party, in addition to insulting friendly Arab countries. The court adjourned until Sept 29 the hearing on the case of Dr. Abdul-Mutalib Behbehani. This case stems from his tweets during the Ashura commemoration, after he denied in court the charge of inciting sectarian strife.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals will issue its ruling on Sept 22 in the case of writer Aisha Al-Rasheed, who appealed a Criminal Court ruling that fined her KD50,000 for inciting sectarian strife and insulting Shiite citizens. Also, the Court of Appeals established an important judicial principle, stating that “a general warrant does not justify arresting anyone other than the accused for whom the search warrant is issued.”

Accordingly, the court overturned the prison sentence imposed on a man accused of drug trafficking and abuse, and acquitted him after he was arrested merely for being in the company of the person subject to the warrant. The court emphasized in its ruling that the presence of the second accused alongside the first accused, who was the actual target of the search, did not constitute serious evidence of complicity or assistance in possessing the seized items. It clarified that the warrant granted to the officer was broad and vague, and did not permit the arrest and search of anyone accompanying the person authorized to be searched without solid evidence of involvement.

The court pointed out that the first defendant’s statements, which attempted to attribute the seized items to the second defendant, lacked credibility and could not be relied upon, particularly since the latter had consistently maintained his denial from the start of the investigation. Moreover, the toxicology report confirmed that his sample was free of any prohibited substances, definitively ruling out his connection to the seized items. The court also observed that his admission to using shabu five days prior to his arrest pertained to a different incident, and therefore, could not be considered evidence of guilt in the present case. Attorney Abdul Mohsen Al-Qattan, who represented the defendants in court, argued that the arrest and search procedures, as well as the confessions based on them, are invalid. He requested for his clients’ acquittal – a request the court granted in its ruling.