Saudi authorities have announced that Saudi–American citizen Saad Almadi, 75, has been allowed to return to his home in Florida after four years of arbitrary detention sparked by 14 tweets he posted on X criticizing government policies. While the decision may appear positive on the surface, the full story of Almadi — from the moment of his arrest to the sudden permission to leave — reveals the scale of abuses he endured and how the authorities turn individual cases into political tools that can be opened and closed at will.
Almadi was arrested during a 2021 visit to the kingdom and later tried before a terrorism court, receiving a 19-year prison sentence. The charges were then reclassified as “cyber crimes,” and he was hit with an additional 30-year travel ban. This trajectory alone shows that the case had nothing to do with legitimate legal grounds; it was about criminalizing peaceful expression and punishing a citizen for opinions expressed abroad.
And now, after the decision to “release” him and allow him to leave the country five months before the scheduled lifting of his travel ban, the core question remains: Has the case truly ended?
Does his return erase years of arbitrary detention?
Will he be compensated for the suffering and harsh conditions he endured?
Will anyone be held accountable for reportedly forcing him — according to his son — to sign papers renouncing his U.S. citizenship?
And does lifting the travel ban undo the psychological harm and the human cost?
The timing and context of Almadi’s release cannot be separated from political maneuvering between Riyadh and Washington, nor from attempts to showcase the decision as a gesture of “goodwill” following high-level meetings. The reality is that the violation already occurred — and what happened now is not reform, but an attempt to close an embarrassing file without any accountability or admission of wrongdoing.
Almadi is not an isolated case. He is one of several citizens who have faced prosecution, travel bans, coercion, and threats for merely criticizing the regime. Addressing a single case, or allowing one person to leave, does not change the fact that the repressive structure remains intact, and that hundreds of others still suffer under similar restrictions.
Allowing Saad Almadi to return home is a humane relief for his family, but it does not close the chapter of abuse, nor does it restore what he lost, nor does it correct an entire system built on silencing dissent. Justice is not fulfilled by sending the victim home; it requires holding perpetrators accountable, compensating the wronged, and ensuring the law is never again used to silence a tweet.