Together for Justice renews its concern regarding the case of Saudi human rights defender Mohammed Saleh Al-Bajadi, whose recent 25-year prison sentence represents one of the clearest examples of judicial retaliation against peaceful human rights advocacy in Saudi Arabia.
Several months ago, the Specialized Criminal Court issued a new ruling sentencing Al-Bajadi to an additional twenty-five years in prison. This decision came despite the fact that his previous sentence had already expired in 2023. Instead of being released upon completion of his term, he remained in detention without transparent legal justification for nearly two additional years. Rather than correcting that irregularity, authorities reopened proceedings against him, culminating in a dramatically harsher sentence based on broadly framed accusations linked to his peaceful rights work.
The re-prosecution of an individual after the expiration of his sentence raises fundamental concerns about legal certainty and the finality of judgments. In any system grounded in rule of law, the completion of a judicially imposed sentence marks the end of state punishment. In Al-Bajadi’s case, however, the expiration of his sentence became the starting point for renewed prosecution. This pattern signals not ordinary judicial review, but the extension of punishment through procedural mechanisms.
Al-Bajadi is a founding member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), a now-dissolved organization that advocated for political reform, anti-corruption measures, and accountability for human rights violations. He was first arrested in 2011 during a broader crackdown on ACPRA members. In May 2018, he was rearrested following a late-night raid on his home without a judicial warrant. Since then, he has reportedly been subjected to enforced disappearance, ill-treatment, and prolonged denial of consistent access to legal counsel and family members.
The recent 25-year sentence must therefore be understood within this broader trajectory of sustained targeting. It reflects a pattern in which peaceful human rights activity is reframed as a security offense, often under the expansive provisions of counterterrorism legislation. The Specialized Criminal Court, originally established for terrorism cases, has repeatedly been used in proceedings involving activists and reform advocates.
A joint communication issued by four United Nations Special Rapporteurs further underscored these concerns. The experts raised serious questions regarding arbitrary detention, violations of fair trial guarantees, the use of counterterrorism legislation to criminalize peaceful advocacy, and the reopening of proceedings based on matters previously adjudicated. Importantly, the communication framed Al-Bajadi’s case not as an isolated incident, but as part of a broader pattern of judicial harassment targeting human rights defenders in the Kingdom.
The severity of the new sentence—twenty-five additional years—signals escalation. It sends a clear message that the completion of a prior sentence does not shield activists from renewed prosecution. Such practices erode confidence in judicial independence and undermine the principle that punishment must be proportionate, legally certain, and final.
Together for Justice affirms that the continued detention and re-sentencing of Mohammed Al-Bajadi constitute serious violations of international human rights standards, including protections against arbitrary detention and the right to a fair and independent trial. The organization calls for the immediate annulment of the new sentence, his unconditional release, and an end to the use of judicial processes as instruments of political reprisal.
Al-Bajadi’s case is no longer merely about the length of a sentence. It is about whether the rule of law retains substantive meaning when the completion of punishment can be converted into grounds for renewed incarceration.