On 18 June 2026, the Kuwaiti Court of Appeal sentenced comedian and content creator Bader Al-Hussainan to three years in prison, overturning an earlier acquittal. The ruling was issued in connection with a short video posted on Snapchat, in which Al-Hussainan appeared with others wearing military helmets in a satirical scene.
Despite the video’s comedic nature and the absence of any direct insult against the state or authorities, the case was referred to the State Security Court on charges related to spreading false information. Undermining military readiness, and spreading fear among the public during wartime.
The case carries significance beyond the sentence imposed on Al-Hussainan, as it comes at a time of growing concerns over the limits of freedom of expression in Kuwait. Particularly when online posts or digital content relate to security or military matters. In this context, cases of this nature have increasingly been viewed as an indicator of the extent to which authorities exercise discretion in interpreting restrictions imposed on freedom of expression.
Cases Beyond Al-Hussainan
Bader Al-Hussainan’s case was not an isolated incident in recent months. It occurred alongside a series of security and judicial measures targeting journalists, media professionals, and social media users over content related to the war and regional developments.
Human Rights Watch called on the Kuwaiti authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Kuwaiti-American journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, who had been detained over charges related to publishing content and security violations. The organization described his detention as an example of the repression of freedom of expression and the use of national security charges in cases involving journalists. The case of presenter Zainab Dashti, who was sentenced to three years in prison over statements related to the war, also sparked widespread controversy, reflecting the repressive environment faced by media professionals and citizens alike.
In addition to these individual cases, the State Security Court issued verdicts against a group of social media users over posts related to the war. It sentenced 17 individuals to three years in prison and another defendant to 10 years, while refraining from punishing 109 individuals and ordering them to delete their posts, and acquitting nine others.
Taken together, these cases indicate an expanding scope of prosecution targeting various forms of digital expression, ranging from satirical content to political commentary and posts concerning military developments.
Counterterrorism Law Expands the Scope of Restrictions
However, the most significant development in 2026 is not limited to arrests and judicial rulings, but extends to the legal framework governing cases classified as security-related. On 15 March 2026, the Emir of Kuwait issued Decree-Law No. 47 of 2026 on Combating Terrorist Crimes.
According to an assessment by Amnesty International, the decree-law raises human rights concerns due to its broad and vague definition of “terrorist act”, which could extend to certain forms of peaceful protest and dissent. It also expands the scope of the death penalty and establishes specialized prosecution and judicial chambers for terrorism and state security cases. The law also allows restrictions to be imposed on certain individuals even without a criminal conviction. Amnesty considers that some of these measures may undermine fair-trial guarantees and restrict freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, particularly as some hearings are held in closed sessions and avenues for appeal in these cases are limited.
This development adds a new dimension to the cases involving social media users and media professionals during the war. The issue is no longer limited to how existing laws are applied to a particular post or video, but also concerns the expanding legislative and security framework within which the authorities operate. It is in this context that the case of Bader Al-Hussainan assumes significance, as part of a broader debate about the extent to which security restrictions on freedom of expression can go during wartime.
A Broader Context Beyond the War
These measures cannot be separated from the political and security context that Kuwait and the region experienced throughout 2026. However, the roots of restrictions on freedom of expression predate the current crisis.
In 2024, Kuwait witnessed a significant escalation in official measures against government critics, including judicial prosecutions, prison sentences, and the revocation of citizenship from several individuals. This context indicates that restrictions on freedom of expression and political opposition are not an exceptional circumstance linked to the war, but part of an ongoing approach to narrowing the space for expression and political participation.
Human rights reports have also addressed restrictions on political activity and freedom of expression, considering the crackdown on opposition and public expression to reflect a broader course of action that goes beyond simply responding to emergency security circumstances.
At the Gulf level, human rights reports have indicated that restrictions on freedom of expression did not begin with the latest war. Rather, they were preceded by restrictions, legislation, and security measures targeting various forms of civic and media activity. With the outbreak of the war, concerns expanded to include arrests linked to digital posts, phone searches, and monitoring of content published on social media, which may push individuals to exercise greater self-censorship over what they publish.
Between Constitutional Text and Practice
Freedom of expression in Kuwait is protected within a legal framework established by the Constitution and relevant legislation. Article 36 of the Constitution states that “freedom of opinion and scientific research is guaranteed. Subject to the conditions and stipulations specified by Law, every person shall have the right to express his opinion by speaking or writing or otherwise.” This article constitutes the legal basis for freedom of expression in the country while granting the legislature scope to enact laws regulating and restricting its exercise. Article 37 also guarantees freedom of the press, printing, and publication, while subjecting these freedoms to the law. Article 30 further affirms that personal liberty is guaranteed.
However, the issue is not solely the absence of constitutional protections, but rather the space left by laws regulating the exercise of these rights and the manner in which security-related provisions are applied in cases involving freedom of expression.
Alongside these constitutional provisions, several laws impose practical restrictions on freedom of expression. Most notably, the State Security Law criminalizes the publication of information deemed to undermine the interests or security of the state. The Press and Publications Law also imposes restrictions on certain forms of publication, including content concerning the Emir and public order. In addition, the Electronic Media Law imposes restrictions on content published online.
International Obligations
The protection of freedom of expression is not limited to Kuwait’s constitutional framework. At the international level, freedom of expression is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Kuwait ratified in 1966. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) likewise affirms that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media.
Restrictions on this right must also be necessary and consistent with legitimate aims, such as the protection of national security or public order, and must not be used to restrict the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
Between Security and Freedom
Against this backdrop, Bader Al-Husseinan’s case should not be viewed solely as a judicial ruling against a content creator, but also as a practical test of the balance between security and freedom of expression in Kuwait: to what extent can the state impose restrictions on expression during wartime, and where does security cease to constitute a legitimate justification and become a tool for restricting civic space? While wars and regional crises may place additional pressure on governments to protect military and security information, an overly broad definition of what constitutes a security threat can, in turn, lead to the restriction of civic space.
In light of the above, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) calls on the Kuwaiti government to respect its international human rights obligations and guarantee freedom of expression for all citizens and residents without fear of punishment or prosecution. ADHRB calls for the immediate and unconditional release of those detained for peaceful expression, including Bader Al-Husseinan; a review of legislation restricting freedom of opinion and expression; and an end to the prosecution of journalists and social media users on the basis of their opinions.
