Jordan’s Silencing of Dissent: A Five-Year Sentence Signals a Wider Crackdown on Online Freedom
Five years. That’s the length of the prison sentence upheld against Jordanian activist Ayman Sanduka for a Facebook post criticizing the country’s relationship with Israel. This isn’t an isolated incident; it’s a stark warning that the space for peaceful dissent is rapidly shrinking in Jordan, and a troubling precedent for how governments across the Middle East are responding to online criticism – particularly regarding sensitive geopolitical issues. The case highlights a dangerous trend: the conflation of legitimate political commentary with incitement, and the use of broad, vaguely-defined laws to suppress freedom of expression.
The Sanduka Case: From Criticism to “Incitement”
Ayman Sanduka, a mathematics teacher and political activist, was initially detained in December 2023 following a Facebook post addressed to the King of Jordan. The post criticized the nation’s diplomatic ties with Israel. He was swiftly convicted by the State Security Court in January 2025 of “incitement to oppose the political regime” and sentenced to five years in prison. While the Court of Cassation briefly offered a glimmer of hope in July 2025, reducing the charge to “insulting the King” and ordering a retrial, the State Security Court shockingly reinstated the original, harsher conviction on September 15, 2025.
Amnesty International has condemned the ruling, with Deputy Regional Director Kristine Beckerle stating that equating criticism with incitement is a “dangerous distortion of justice.” The use of the State Security Court itself is a major concern. This military court consistently fails to meet international standards of impartiality and independence, raising serious questions about the fairness of the proceedings.
The Role of Broadly Defined Laws
The Sanduka case isn’t occurring in a vacuum. Since the October 2023 Israeli offensive in Gaza, Jordanian authorities have increasingly relied on the Penal Code and the Cybercrimes Law to target individuals expressing critical opinions about government policies, particularly those concerning Israel. These laws are often vaguely worded, granting authorities significant leeway in interpreting what constitutes a punishable offense. This ambiguity creates a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from voicing their opinions online for fear of retribution.
A Regional Trend: Online Dissent Under Pressure
Jordan’s actions are part of a broader trend across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Governments are increasingly utilizing surveillance technologies and restrictive legislation to monitor and control online spaces. From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens are facing arrest, imprisonment, and hefty fines for expressing dissenting views online. This crackdown is often justified under the guise of national security or combating “fake news,” but the reality is a systematic effort to stifle freedom of expression and suppress political opposition.
The increasing sophistication of digital surveillance tools further exacerbates the problem. Governments are now capable of monitoring social media activity, tracking online communications, and even identifying individuals based on their digital footprint. This creates an environment of constant surveillance, where individuals are hesitant to express themselves freely online.
The Implications for Jordan and Beyond
The Sanduka case has significant implications for Jordan’s international standing. It undermines the country’s claims of being a progressive and democratic nation committed to human rights. It also risks alienating international partners who prioritize freedom of expression. More broadly, the suppression of dissent in Jordan could fuel social unrest and instability, particularly if economic conditions continue to deteriorate.
The long-term consequences of this trend are even more concerning. A society where critical voices are silenced is a society that is less likely to address its own problems and adapt to changing circumstances. The suppression of dissent can also create a breeding ground for extremism, as individuals who feel marginalized and disenfranchised may turn to more radical ideologies.
Navigating the New Digital Landscape: What’s Next?
The future of online freedom in Jordan, and across the MENA region, remains uncertain. However, several key trends are likely to shape the landscape in the coming years. We can anticipate increased reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) for content moderation and surveillance, potentially leading to even more arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of restrictive laws. Expect to see a rise in the use of “digital security” measures – ostensibly designed to protect citizens – that are, in reality, tools for government control. Furthermore, the increasing fragmentation of the internet, with governments seeking to establish greater control over their own digital spaces, could further isolate citizens and limit their access to information.
The case of Ayman Sanduka serves as a critical reminder of the fragility of freedom of expression in the digital age. Protecting this fundamental right requires sustained advocacy from international organizations, increased awareness among citizens, and a commitment from governments to uphold their obligations under international law. Amnesty International continues to be a leading voice in this fight.
What steps can individuals take to protect their online freedom? Utilizing encryption tools, practicing digital hygiene, and supporting organizations that advocate for online rights are all crucial steps. The fight for a free and open internet is a collective responsibility, and it’s one that we cannot afford to lose.
What are your predictions for the future of digital freedom in the Middle East? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
