27/06/2026
Share:
27/06/2026
Share:
During the past three months, I have spent countless hours inside Kuwait’s specialised State Security courtrooms, appearing in cases that arose during one of the region’s most sensitive periods following the unlawful Iranian aggression and the heightened political tensions that followed. Yet the most important lesson I have taken away was not the prison sentences, the acquittals, or even the legal arguments. It was hearing the same conclusion repeated outside the courtroom after many judgments were delivered: “The defendant has been acquitted.” In many cases, that conclusion was legally incorrect.
Recent weeks have witnessed a series of significant State Security judgments involving allegations of harming the country’s national interests, inciting sectarian division, promoting prohibited organisations, and misusing social media during a period of exceptional regional sensitivity. The outcomes have varied. Some defendants received custodial sentences, others were acquitted, while in numerous cases the courts refrained from pronouncing punishment. Additional hearings remain scheduled through the end of June and early July, ensuring these issues will continue to attract public attention.
It is this third category of judgments that has become one of the most misunderstood concepts in Kuwaiti criminal law.
Many people understandably assume that if a defendant leaves the courtroom without going to prison, the case must have ended in acquittal. The law says otherwise. An acquittal means the prosecution failed to establish criminal responsibility. A judgment refraining from pronouncing punishment means the court reached the opposite conclusion. The offence was proven, criminal responsibility was established, and the defendant was convicted. Only then did the court decide, within the limits prescribed by law, not to impose the punishment itself.
This is not an act of judicial sympathy, nor does it diminish the seriousness of the offence. Rather, it reflects a deliberate legal philosophy. Kuwaiti law allows judges, in carefully defined circumstances, to conclude that the interests of justice may be better served by accountability combined with an opportunity for rehabilitation than by immediate imprisonment. The conviction remains, and the defendant must comply with strict conditions imposed by the court, including good conduct obligations and, in many cases, financial guarantees. Breaching those conditions may carry significant legal consequences.
These judgments have acquired even greater significance following the introduction of Decree-Law No. 51 of 2026, which established specialised judicial circuits to hear State Security and terrorism-related offences. The legislature recognised that cases affecting national security require both specialised judicial expertise and swift resolution while preserving the rights of the accused. Within this framework, appellate judgments are final, making every stage of litigation critically important for both the prosecution and the defence.
Having appeared before these courts, I have learned that lawyers and the public often read judgments differently. Lawyers begin by asking why the court reached its decision. The public often focuses only on what the decision was. Yet in law, the reasoning behind a judgment is frequently more important than the final line announcing it. Two defendants may both leave the courtroom without imprisonment, but one may have been acquitted while the other has been convicted and granted a carefully regulated opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation. The practical outcome may appear similar; the legal consequences are entirely different.
As these cases continue to move through Kuwait’s specialised State Security courts, one lesson deserves to outlive the headlines. Judicial decisions should not be understood through social media commentary alone. They should be understood through the legal principles on which they are built. The recent judgments demonstrate that a strong justice system is measured not only by its ability to punish wrongdoing, but also by its ability to distinguish, within the framework of the law, between punishment that protects society and rehabilitation that ultimately serves it. Understanding that distinction strengthens public confidence in both the courts and the rule of law.
Dr. Fawaz Khaled Alkhateeb
Managing Partner, Taher Group Law Firm
