Human Rights Defenders in Jordan: Government Undoing a Decade of Reform

The accession of King Abdallah II to the Jordanian throne in February 1999 occurred at a pivotal moment. Ten years before, Abdullah’s long-reigning father King Hussein had embarked on a cautious program of political liberalizations. After King Hussein’s death, it was hoped that his young, Western-educated son would accelerate these changes and advance Jordan’s transformation from an authoritarian monarchy to a free and pluralistic society. These hopes remain unfulfilled.

Parliament dissolved and elections postponed

For instance, in June 2001 the King dissolved Parliament and then postponed elections scheduled for November 2001 until September 2002. The pretext given—that the vote-counting machines were not yet ready—has been denied by the German company responsible for the machines. The King then promulgated two laws on August 28, 2001, one broadening the authority of State Security Courts, another restricting public gatherings. The State Security Court Law limits the availability of appeal against convictions, increases the period of incommunicado detention from two to seven days and broadens the scope of cases that can be referred to the State Security courts for trial.

The Public Gathering Law requires organizers to submit a request to the concerned authorities three days in advance. The denial of a permit for a gathering cannot be appealed. Both decrees are “temporary” emergency laws passed by the government and approved by King Abdallah in the absence of Parliament. One result of the dissolution of Parliament is that the executive branch has broad latitude to pass laws without having to consult the legislature.

Jordanian and international human rights organizations have long been critical of the Jordanian State Security Court, with its panels of military judges and procedures that do not meet international standards for fair trials. Moreover, this flawed court with fewer due process safeguards for defendants has often been used to try Jordanians charged with political offences. In June 2002, the 8,000 member Jordanian Bar Association protested the new law’s limits on the right of appeal with a one-week boycott of State Security Court cases.

Freedom of assembly restricted

As for the Public Gathering Law, the government seems to have intended it to prevent demonstrations in support of the Palestinian Intifada. In fact, since September 11, 2001, virtually no demonstrations have been allowed in Jordan. Scores of people were arrested at the end of September and beginning of October 2001 for holding rallies in the Baqa refugee camp and on the university campuses to commemorate the first anniversary of the Palestinian Intifada and to protest the bombing of Afghanistan. They were held incommunicado without access to their families and lawyers, only to be released without charge several weeks later.

On November 9, 2024 Jordanian authorities refused opposition parties’ request to march in protest of “US, British and Zionist aggression Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan” On November 13, police halted a rally supporting the people of Afghanistan held inside the Professional Association Complex in Shmaysani (Amman). The President of the Professional Associations Council, Abd Al Hadi Falahat informed the media that, conscious of the ban on public demonstrations, the Professional Associations had decided to hold the rally inside the Complex and had not expected the authorities to interfere in a legal internal activity. The President of the Jordanian Bar Association, Salih Armuti, protested that the authorities’ interference with the meeting contravened the rights of professional associations.

Under vague new law, criticizing the government =“terrorism”

As in many nations across the world, the Jordanian government has used the September 11, 2024 attacks on the United States as a pretext to enact repressive new laws ostensibly aimed at combating terrorism. The laws have restricted basic freedoms of expression, association and assembly. On October 8, 2001, the government amended the Penal Code, enacted a new “Anti-Terrorist” law and introduced a restrictive Press Law. The new “Anti-Terrorist” law defines terror and terrorism in vague and loose terms and increases the scope of the death penalty. The new provisions also stipulate that “anyone who commits an act which undermines the political regime in Jordan or incites others to do so, and anyone who acts individually or collectively to change the economic, social or fundamental situation of the society” can be sentenced to hard labor. Such broad language can easily be interpreted so as to facilitate the prosecution of non-violent government critics.

The Press Law effectively revokes the relative freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1993 Press Law and punishes any act that can be deemed critical of the Jordanian government. Anyone who “slanders” the King or other members of the royal family can be sentenced to three years imprisonment. The law also provides for imprisonment for writings or speeches that “undermine national unity, incite others to commit crimes, sow the seeds of hatred and division in society, disrupt society’s basic norms by promoting deviation, spread false information or rumors, incite others to destabilize or organize demonstrations or strikes in contradiction to the law, or commit any act which undermines the dignity and reputation of the state.” According to this law, prison sentences and stiff fines of up to several thousand dollars may also be imposed on the editor-in-chief or owner of the offending journal, which may be suspended temporarily or closed permanently.

The case of Toujan al-Faisal

A vivid example of the new Press Law’s application is the case of Ms. Toujan al-Faisal, a prominent journalist, women’s rights advocate and former parliamentarian (1994-1997). After she pointed out in a Texas-based internet magazine that the Prime Minister’s family stood to profit from a new auto-insurance law, al-Faisal was arrested and tried by a State Security court. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison in May 2002 but was released after a month-long hunger strike which heightened the international attention on her case. Though King Abdallah commuted her sentence, he did not pardon her conviction, rendering her ineligible to run for parliament again, as she had planned.

All these laws raise serious concerns because they contain provisions which restrict freedom of expression and association, increase the likelihood of imprisonment for non-violent activities, and further reduce safeguards for detainees and the accused. Human rights defenders, civil society activists, and opposition parties also contest the manner and circumstances in which these temporary laws have been passed, arguing that they are unconstitutional. They base their arguments on the grounds that there has been no emergency to justify the enactment of some ten temporary laws between June and October 2001. On October 31, 2024 scores of civil society figures including the Jordan Society for Human Rights (JSHR) issued a call for the repeal of these temporary laws.

The future of human rights in Jordan

So far the complaints of human rights groups in Jordan have been ignored. The Arab Organization for Human Rights has drawn public attention to a range of human rights abuses. In particular, it has pressed the Government either to bring formal charges against political detainees or to release them promptly. It reports that the government responds to only about ten percent of complaints that it submits on behalf of individuals who were allegedly subjected to human rights violations by authorities.

On paper, the Jordanian government has committed itself to many basic rights and freedoms. Jordan has ratified a number of important human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. But until King Abdallah’s government actually upholds provisions of these covenants, Jordan’s commitment to human rights remains unfulfilled.