UAE Counterterrorism Law: A Tool To Suppress Dissent

shutterstock 1266143284 1

It is now sadly well known that some Gulf countries use anti-terrorism laws to suppress freedom of expression and dissent. Saudi Arabia, for example, makes extensive use of vague and easily manipulated laws to persecute individuals who are merely suspected of having committed illegal acts. Recently, a report published by Women Journalists Without Chains showed that these anti-terrorism laws are also being used in the United Arab Emirates to persecute political opponents and activists.

Federal Law No. 7 of 2014 is the instrument through which the United Arab Emirates regulates terrorism-related offences. It was introduced at a time when the influence of the Islamic State and instability in the region were causing concern for the country’s government. The latter, in fact, wanted to protect its stability and strategic position in the region. This law, initially announced as a fundamental tool for the country, immediately proved to be a dangerous tool for activists and dissidents.

As noted in the WJWC report, this law was not enacted at just any time. In 2011, the Arab uprisings had also reached the UAE, albeit to a limited extent. Calls for reform had also been heard there, and the government had taken harsh measures to counter criticism against it. The tracking and repression of dissidents were frequent during that period, and the adoption of an anti-terrorism law a few years later may also be the result of this change in the Emirati government’s stance.

The UAE government’s intention to use this law arbitrarily can easily be inferred from the language used in it. The latter, in fact, is rather vague and can be easily manipulated by the authorities. For example, when the law refers to “terrorist groups”, these are defined as: “any group of two or more persons that has committed, participated in, facilitated, incited, or merely planned or sought to commit a terrorist crime, regardless of its name, form, location, or the nationality of its members”. This definition may therefore lead to the prosecution of those who, without physically committing these acts, are involved in advocating against the government or organising non-violent protest activities.

The definition of ‘group of two or more persons’ is also problematic because, if interpreted broadly, even a public meeting could be considered by the authorities as a terrorist act. This law therefore not only undermines people’s ability to publicly express their opinions or criticise the government. It also criminalises people’s ability to gather in public meetings aimed at supporting and fighting for the protection of human rights. However, the vagueness of the definitions does not stop there but is present throughout the body of law, thus amplifying the dangers that critics of the government must face.

There are already several cases in which the Emirati government has used the provisions contained in the 2014 law. The best known is the UAE 94 case, in which 94 activists were accused of organising a plan to overthrow the government during the Arab Uprising. However, the group’s approach was entirely non-violent, and the government was only able to prosecute these individuals thanks to the vagueness of its laws. Between 2022 and 2023, the government re-tried 84 of these activists, increasing their sentences and casting doubt on the possibility that they will ever be released.

The UAE 94 case is a worrying precedent that shows how freedom of expression in the UAE is totally opposed by the country’s government. The anti-terrorism law adopted in 2014 should be a tool to safeguard and protect the security of the country and the people who live there. Citizens should feel safe from external threats and not feel opposed by their own government, which lashes out against them and persecutes them for any show of opposition. In light of this, the United Arab Emirates must clarify the content of the 2014 law and demonstrate that it is being used effectively to protect citizens. Until this happens, the country’s government must be held responsible for any restrictions on the freedom of expression of Emirati citizens.