On Wednesday, 3 December 2025, Jordanian activist Ayman Sandouqa began an open-ended hunger strike at his detention centre in Tafila Governorate. The strike comes in protest of what he described as an “unprecedented legal anomaly,” following the State Security Court’s reversal of its decision to uphold a ruling by the Court of Cassation in his case.
Sandouqa is now on his 713th day in detention, with no final verdict issued in the past three months.
Previously, the State Security Court had informed Sandouqa’s lawyer that it would abide by the Court of Cassation’s ruling, which downgraded the charges against him to a misdemeanour punishable by a maximum of three years in prison. However, the court later backtracked and reinstated its previous sentence of five years with hard labour, following a reclassification of the charge. This unexpected reversal has raised serious concerns among legal and human rights circles in Jordan, as it is seen as a rare departure from the binding authority of Court of Cassation decisions.
According to his family, Sandouqa expressed deep frustration over the sudden change, especially after the court had formally pledged to comply with the higher court’s decision. They believe his prolonged detention without a final ruling has exacerbated his suffering and left him in a prolonged state of “legal limbo.”
Sandouqa had been charged under Article 149 of the Jordanian Penal Code with “inciting opposition to the political regime,” following a public Facebook post in which he directly addressed King Abdullah II, criticising his failure to cancel the “peace” agreement with the Israeli occupation in protest of ongoing massacres in Gaza.
The developments in Sandouqa’s case highlight a fundamental breach in the principle of the finality of Court of Cassation rulings. Reversing a previously announced decision to follow the highest court’s judgment undermines a cornerstone of the judiciary: that the ultimate interpretation by the top court is binding and beyond challenge. Such a breach directly threatens the rule of law and the hierarchical structure of legal review upon which any stable justice system relies.
Sandouqa’s continued detention for more than 700 days without a definitive ruling also raises serious legal concerns. It clearly violates the right to a timely trial and borders on extended detention without a defined judicial process. The delays and shifting legal characterisation of his case point to a dysfunction in the administration of justice and exacerbate the psychological and legal toll on the defendant.
Moreover, reclassifying the charge after the Court of Cassation had definitively determined its legal character is deeply contentious. It raises questions about the limits of the State Security Court’s discretionary powers, specifically, where the court’s right to interpret the law ends and where its obligation to adhere to superior court rulings begins. Returning to a harsher charge after a final decision had imposed a lighter one seriously undermines confidence in fair legal procedures and makes judicial hierarchy appear more symbolic than real.
Together, these irregularities indicate that Sandouqa’s trial is not only delayed, but structurally flawed in ways that jeopardise fundamental procedural justice. According to those close to him, his decision to launch an open-ended hunger strike reflects his despair at the lack of a clear legal path out of the prolonged suspension he has endured for months.
