REFORM ACTIVISTS ON TRIAL IN SAUDI ARABIA--BUT FOR WHAT?

Mr. Ali al-Dumaini, Dr. Matrouk al-Faleh, and Dr. Abdallah al-Hamed, three Saudi reform activists calling for constitutional monarchy, were arrested on March 16, 2004, along with several others. The authorities released all but the three. Those released promised to end their activism. Dumaini, Faleh, and Hamed refused to enter into such an agreement with the authorities; hence their continued detention.

THE CHARGES

On or about August 10, 2004, the authorities opened the trial of the three. After a one-day hearing, at which charges were read, it remained unclear when the trial will reconvene. The three activists were charged with calling for the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and for impuning the independence of the Saudi judiciary. Moreover, the authorities accused the three of having issued statements that were critical of the royal government, of having adopted and circulated petitions, and of having contacted the foreign media.

(The general confusion about the time table of the trial is likely due to the absence of secular legal tradition. The one-day hearing at which charges were read should have been referred to as presentment or arraignment. Following this initial hearing, the court gives the parties time to engage in discovery and otherwise prepare their cases. Attorneys at that hearing can re-engage the court in bond determination; they should be able to address the bond status of their clients any time they feel developments have emerged that warrant re-consideration by the court.)

One internet site which gave a detailed description of the first and only day of trial described the charges as follows: (1) incitement of unrest; (2) rebellion against the ruler; (3) creation of turmoil; (4) calling for the assembly of citizens; (5) drafting inciting statements; and (6) attempting to disturb the peace of the lands.

Faleh, one of the reformers, has recently reiterated his call for the election of the Majlis al-Shawra (the Consultative Council--appointed), and diminished the importance of the upcoming municipal elections.

THE THREE REFORM ACTIVISTS REPRESENT PEACEFUL OPPOSITION IN SAUDI ARABIA

No one disputes that the three reformers reject violence and are peace-minded. In essence, therefore, the government has placed on trial the legitimate and peaceful political opposition. This opposition stands in sharp contrast to the dangerously-divisive and criminally-violent activism championed by the emir-in-chief, the exiled Osama bin-Laden.

DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

That the government is violating the basic due process rights of the three activists is evident in the reported comment by a Saudi lawyer that none of the charges leveled against the three is defined by Saudi statutes.

A Public Relations Disaster? It is possible that American (sophomoric!) public relations firms are advising the Saudi government about this trial. These amateurs (who probably never worked or volunteered for human or civil rights organizations) don't seem to appreciate (or even understand) that Western observers will justifiably key in on due process violations, first and foremost.

For many among the American observers are still laboring under the old paradigm when, once upon a time in the United States, before the enactment of the U.S. Patriot Act, a prosecutor would be laughed out of his job for charges of the kind leveled against the three Saudi activists. If an indictment failed to parallel the text of a statute, and the rubber-stamp grand jury let the prosecutor get away with it, he would run the real risk of the independent court granting a motion to strike the indictment and very possibly dismissing the case. Under the U.S. Patriot Act, however, such protection for the accused has been eliminated, and kangaroo justice has taken over. Still, Western observers--including the American--mostly belong to the old generations when due process mattered.

It's important to note that the Saudi authorities have treated the three detained activists humanely, as reported by Faleh. This humane record, however, was tarnished when on the first day of trial, Mr. Hamed, who suffers from diabetes, complained about the poor state of medical care in prison. SPC certainly hopes the Saudi authorities would bring in competent physicians to attend to Mr. Faleh's condition.

Internet sources mentioned yet more due process violations: The alleged disqualification by the Minister of Justice (the "Attorney General") of three attorneys (Al-Wahaibi, al-Reshdawi, and al-Nassiri) in the case. Additionally, Hamed, one of the three reformers on trial, reported that he was not allowed to meet with his lawyers. Equally disturbing was his complaint that he had not been informed of the date of his trial and only learned about it from Mr. Dumaini one hour before the start of the judicial proceeding.

Most disturbing of all: Why are these three men detained? Why aren't they on bond?