Ex-MP jailed in Amir libel suit

17/03/2026

KUWAIT CITY, March 17: The Court of Appeals, presided over by Judge Saud Yousef Al-Sanea, overturned the verdict issued by the Court of First Instance, which acquitted former MP Mohammad Al-Mutair of insulting the Amir and the judiciary. The court instead sentenced him to two years in prison with hard labor, stating that insulting the Amir’s position includes any act that could harm the dignity of the country.

The court sentenced the second defendant to one year in prison with hard labor and imposed a fine of KD 2,000. The prosecution had charged Al-Mutair with multiple offenses, including publicly insulting the Amir through statements made at a political seminar and later published on social media, showing disrespect to judges of the Constitutional Court and members of the judiciary in a way that casts doubt on their integrity, dedication, and commitment to upholding the law, aiding and abetting the dissemination of material criticizing the Amir, and aiding and abetting the dissemination of material that insults members of the judiciary, and undermines their integrity and impartiality.

The verdict referred to the complaint filed against Al-Mutair for “insulting the Amir, members of the judiciary, and the president and members of the Constitutional Court during a seminar titled “Reform Between Slogan and Reality,” held at the diwan of former National Assembly member Mubarak Haif Al-Hajraf in Jahra, which was attended by a number of former National Assembly members.” Regarding the legal characterization of the ruling, the verdict stated, “With respect to the first charge against the first defendant—the crime of publicly insulting the Emirate— Articles 51, 52, and 54 of the Constitution stipulate that legislative power is vested in the Amir and the National Assembly in accordance with the Constitution, and executive power is vested in the Amir, the Council of Ministers, and the Ministers, as specified in the Constitution.

The Amir is the Head of State, and his person is inviolable. It has been established in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court that every individual has freedom of opinion and expression, and there is no punishment for thinking or forming an opinion. Punishment applies only to declaring an opinion contrary to the law and publicizing it through any of the means of public expression listed in Article 25 of Law No. 31/1970, which amends certain provisions of the Penal Code. There is no basis for invoking the argument that freedom of opinion is guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution without limitation, as freedom of opinion differs from other freedoms in that it extends beyond the individual and aims to influence others.

Therefore, its regulation is permissible because unrestricted exercise could lead to sedition, chaos, insecurity, and fragmentation of authority. The Constitution carefully stipulates this, along with references to the laws regulating it. Its regulation is permissible because, if exercised without limitation, it could lead to sedition, chaos, insecurity, and the fragmentation of authority. The Constitution carefully stipulates this, along with references to the relevant laws. The law does not require specific intent for the crime of insulting the position of the Amir, as general intent is sufficient. The presence or absence of criminal intent is a factual matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court and is not subject to appeal, provided the judgment is based on the evidence.

The defendant’s motive is irrelevant once the legal elements of the crime are present. Acts that challenge the rights and powers of the Amir, insult the person of the Amir, or insult the position of the Amir are criminal offenses intended to protect the Amir from potential attacks on his rights and authority. This includes any criticism that constitutes defamation, undermines dignity, or causes emotional harm, as well as innuendo or linguistic disrespect that could weaken the authority of the head of state and violate the constitutional rights he derives from the Constitution.