A Jordanian court on Tuesday issued a ruling sentencing three minor boys to one year in prison, after reducing the original sentence of three years. Among them is Abdulrahman, the son of opposition activist Khaled al-Jehani.
According to lawyer Abdulqader al-Khateeb, the indictment levelled against the boys included grave charges such as establishing an organisation with the intent to carry out terrorist acts, possessing explosive materials, manufacturing explosives, and promoting terrorist groups.
Despite the severity of these accusations, al-Khateeb insists that all procedures taken against the minors are false, adding that the defence team will file an appeal as it is convinced that the facts of the case do not contain any act justifying these charges. He also expressed regret that the case bears a clearly political character, particularly given that one of the defendants is related to a well-known opposition figure, Khaled al-Jehani.
The ruling comes within a series of cases in recent months targeting young men and boys facing similar allegations, all of which share a common element, where the defendants had expressed support for Gaza amid the ongoing assault on the Strip. This has stirred fears of an expanding use of counter-terrorism laws to criminalise political expression or humanitarian solidarity.
Issuing a terrorism-related sentence against minors on broad and ambiguous charges raises serious concerns regarding juvenile justice guarantees, respect for freedom of expression, and the need to ensure that security legislation is not employed as a tool of political pressure. The case also highlights the necessity of clarifying definitions of “promotion” and “sympathy” in such contexts to prevent them from becoming blanket terms used to penalise political positions or human sentiment.
Legally, the prosecution of minors in sensitive security cases requires heightened safeguards to ensure the integrity of investigations and the proportionality of charges given their young age. This prompts further questions about whether proper standards were upheld, particularly in the absence of clear material evidence substantiating the serious accusations brought against them.
Although the three minors have already served around seven and a half months of their sentence, the punishment remains in effect despite lingering doubts surrounding the case file. This raises additional questions over judicial impartiality, especially amid repeated cases perceived to carry political overtones tied to expressions of solidarity with Gaza or to family affiliations with opposition figures.
