(Beirut) – Jordanian authorities should not contest the most recent application to review and annul the abusive conviction of Ayman Sandouka, the former head of a now-dissolved political party, and pave the way for his release, Human Rights Watch said today.
Jordan’s State Security Court (SSC), a military institution that includes both military and civilian judges, sentenced Sandouka to five years in prison in early 2025 for a 2023 Facebook post peacefully addressing Jordan’s king about relations with Israel. After a series of unsuccessful appeals, an application to review and annul the conviction at the Court of Cassation, Jordan’s highest court, is pending. Jordanian authorities should allow to the application to go forward and immediately review and abolish provisions of the 2023 cybercrime law that are routinely used to restrict free expression online.
“Ayman Sandouka should not have spent a single night in prison for exercising his right to free speech,” said Adam Coogle, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities have an opportunity to correct this injustice and allow him to return to his family.”
On January 7, 2025, the SSC convicted Sandouka of “undermining the political regime or inciting opposition to it” under article 149 of the penal code, an antiterrorism provision, and article 15 of the cybercrime law.
The charges stemmed from an October 17, 2023 Facebook post he peacefully addressed to King Abdullah II concerning Israeli-Jordanian diplomatic relations, based on court documents reviewed by Human Rights Watch. Sandouka criticised Jordan’s normalization agreement with Israel in a public, open letter to the king. Jordanian authorities have arrested and harassed pro-Palestine activists since October 2023.
The conviction violates Sandouka’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed under article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Jordanian cybercrime patrols flagged the post on December 18, 2023, and the military prosecutor ordered Sandouka’s arrest on December 21, 2023, the court documents show. At the time of his conviction, Sandouka was already being held in a separate cybercrime case over Facebook posts about Israel’s military assault on Gaza, for which he received a three-month sentence and a 5,000 Jordanian dinar (JOD) fine (about US$ 7,000) for disparaging state authorities.
Authorities are holding Sandouka in Tafilah prison in southern Jordan, approximately 185 kilometers [114 miles] from his family in Amman, his lawyer said, making visits by his family and lawyer more difficult and arduous.
Article 15 of the cybercrime law imposes a minimum three-month sentence and/or a fine of JOD 5,000 to 20,000 (about $7,000 to $28,200) for anyone convicted of intentionally publishing “fake news targeting national security.”
Sandouka’s lawyer appealed the conviction to the Court of Cassation on January 28, 2025, the appeal documents showed. On July 10, 2025, the court ruled that the correct charge should have been the less serious crime of insulting the king under article 195 of the penal code, which carries a sentence of one to three years, rather than article 149. The court sent the case back to the SSC for review.
The original court said it would comply with the Court of Cassation’s ruling but instead issued the original ruling again, and the Court of Cassation accepted it.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No.34 on article 19 of the ICCPR states “the mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties … all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition.” The General Comment adds that State Parties should not prohibit criticism of the army and the administration.
Under article 10(c) of Law No. 17 on the State Security Court of 1959, the Court of Cassation can overturn SSC decisions and refer it back for review when it finds a violation of the procedures or application of the law. Article 10(d) of the same law stipulates that Court of Cassation’s verdict is final in any case.
Sandouka’s lawyer told Human Rights Watch: “The State Security Court no longer pays any regard to the Court of Cassation.”
Two judges issued a dissenting opinion. They argued that as a matter of procedure, the SSC could not depart from the Court of Cassation’s decision and had, in doing so, violated the law. On the substance, they concluded that the Facebook post did not rise to the level of the serious crime “incitement to oppose or undermine the political regime” and only meets the elements of the minor crime of insulting the king, according to the court documents.
On February 18, 2026, Sandouka's lawyer filed a memorandum asking the Court of Cassation to revisit its December 2025 confirmation of the SSC ruling. The request remains pending, his lawyer said.
Jordanian authorities have heavily restricted criticism of Jordan’s position on Israel and Palestine since October 2023, arresting and prosecuting individuals for protest participation and online expression under the repressive 2023 cybercrime law. Human Rights Watch found patterns of arbitrary detention, unfair trials, and coercive measures, reflecting a broader erosion of civic space and systematic efforts to silence dissent. The authorities have yet to review the abusive 2023 law despite public criticism and recommendations by the UN Human Rights Council and Jordan’s National Center for Human Rights, which was tasked with monitoring implementation of the law.
Human Rights Watch opposes the creation and use of special courts to try national security crimes. National security courts are frequently authorized by law to conduct trials in a manner that restricts the rights of defendants beyond what is permissible under international human rights law. In many countries, regular criminal courts have proven very effective in prosecuting terrorism offenses in accordance with international due process standards. Restricting the Jordanian SSC’s jurisdiction over civilians should be a step toward abolishing the court, Human Rights Watch said.
“Sandouka is one of many Jordanians prosecuted for peaceful speech under the cybercrime law,” Coogle said. “Jordanian authorities should be righting this wrong and upholding the rule of law.”
