17 people executed in Saudi Arabia, mostly for drug crimes
Two Saudis were executed for "terrorist crimes," the official Saudi Press Agency said, after 15 people, mostly foreigners, were put to death for drug offenses on Saturday and Sunday.
It is the quickest pace of capital punishment since March 2022, when 81 people were executed in a single day for terrorism-related offenses, sparking widespread condemnation. In 2016, Saudi Arabia executed 47 people in what had been the country's largest mass execution since 1980.
Thirteen of those put to death on Saturday and Sunday were convicted of smuggling hashish, and another for smuggling cocaine.
Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most prolific users of the death penalty, has carried out 239 executions so far this year. The conservative country is on course to outstrip last year's 338 — the highest since public records first documented cases in the early 1990s.
This year's executions include 161 for drug offenses and 136 foreigners, according to an AFP tally of official data.
Jeed Basyouni of the Reprieve rights group last week signaled a "significant rise in executions for hashish-related drug offenses, with foreign nationals making up most of these executions."
"This is particularly concerning given the global trend toward decriminalizing the possession and use of hashish," she told AFP.
Analysts link the spike to the kingdom's "war on drugs" launched in 2023, with many of those first arrested now being executed following legal proceedings.
Saudi Arabia resumed executions for drug offenses at the end of 2022, after suspending the practice for around three years. It says it only carries out death sentences after defendants have exhausted all avenues of appeal, and that executions are aimed at ensuring security and deterring drugs.
The country executed 46 people in June alone, mostly foreign nationals, including 37 for drug-related crimes, which is an average of more than one drug-related execution each day, according to an Amnesty International report released last month. Last year, Saudi Arabia carried out a record 345 executions, the group said.
"We are witnessing a truly horrifying trend, with foreign nationals being put to death at a startling rate for crimes that should never carry the death penalty," Kristine Beckerle, Amnesty International's deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said in a statement.
Activists say the continued embrace of capital punishment undermines the image of a more welcoming society that is central to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's Vision 2030 reform agenda.
How safe is our Social Security safety net?
Russia downplays Trump's announcement about nuclear submarines
Former Trump prosecutor under investigation for potential Hatch Act violations
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Saudi Crown Prince to Meet Trump in Washington in November
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman plans to meet US President Donald Trump in Washington in November, according to people with knowledge of the preparations. The Trump administration has invited MBS, as the crown prince is known, and the planned visit comes on the back of the US leader's visit to Saudi Arabia in May as part of a Gulf tour that also included neighboring Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. At the time, Trump, who was accompanied by more than 30 business leaders from top US corporations, said $1 trillion worth of deals were signed during his stay in Riyadh. Later, the White House said it was more like $600 billion. Bloomberg News National Security Reporter Jamie Tarabay details the complex relationship between the two leaders and how their ties stand to impact the Middle East going forward. Jamie speaks with Carol Massar and Norah Mulinda on Bloomberg Businessweek Daily. (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A-G: Gov't dismissal of chief prosecutor while PM on criminal trial is illegal
The government is slated today to push through a final vote to dismiss Baharav-Miara. What will likely happen next is that the High Court of Justice will provide a judicial review of the decision. The way that the government has gone about dismissing Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara is against the law, riddled with disingenuous political motivations, and a glaring red flag for the future of the role, its independence, and the rule of law, the A-G said on Monday, ahead of the expected final vote to seal her dismissal. Baharav-Miara pointed out that this aggressively fast dismissal process could not be divorced from the challenge that the government is currently facing: coalition cohesion. Undermining this cohesion are issues pertaining, for example, to the draft-exemption law, faulty cases concerning political intervention in law enforcement, sectoral budgets that do not align with the law, and political appointments made based on personal connections, not merit, she continued. As for the firing process of Baharav-Miara, High Court Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg ruled in July, following petitions against the decision, that this will require judicial review and will not come into effect immediately. In essence, Sohlberg's ruling cooled down some of the intense flames surrounding the unprecedented move against the person serving both as the chief legal adviser to the government and as its head of prosecution. Sohlberg's compromise on timing opens the door to petitions against the decision. Soon after the news broke of the committee's decision, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, for one, petitioned to challenge it in court. In all probability, petitioners will also request that the court issue an injunction against the decision, effectively stopping it from taking immediate effect. Dismissing her is 'the removal of one of the main and last checks that existed in Israeli jurisprudence on the power of the government,' Baharav-Miara wrote on Monday. In her sharply-worded letter, the A-G surmised that the reasons provided by Justice Minister Yariv Levin in his insistence on her dismissal indicate that he is looking for an attorney-general 'who will simply obey the government and legalize its intended violations of the law.' Levin, for instance, is seeking to make it possible 'for eligible haredi (ultra-Orthodox) men to avoid being drafted into the military,' as well as allowing for 'political interference in police matters,' she continued. Not only that, but in dismissing and replacing the A-G, the government is directly challenging her as the chief prosecutor in the cases against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other ministers. These cases may be affected by the dismissal, she wrote. The government has stated time and again that the working relationship between it and the legal advisory has become so strained that it is impossible to continue like this; replacing Baharav-Miara is the only possible solution. Opponents view the move as aggressive and drastic, as well as dangerous in rendering powerless one of the last remaining checks on the government's power. The current legal protocol for hiring or dismissing an attorney-general was codified in the year 2000, following the Shamgar Commission and the Bar-On-Hebron affair. The conditions assume that a hiring or dismissal could happen relatively quickly to avoid leaving the post vacant. In January 1997, lawyer Roni Bar-On was appointed attorney-general by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He was not qualified for the position and resigned two days later after public and political outrage. About a week later, it was revealed that Bar-On's appointment was part of a deal between Netanyahu and Shas head Arye Deri, who was then the internal security minister, to advance a plea bargain in Deri's corruption trial. Deri pushed for the appointment in exchange for his party's support of the controversial Hebron Agreement for the withdrawal of IDF forces from some parts of the city. He was later indicted and was barred from politics for a decade. Deri was later indicted and was barred from politics for a decade The Shamgar Commission was then created to establish the criteria for a committee that would ensure this would not happen again. Today, there is the public-professional committee, which must approve the candidate and provide the government with recommendations before any decision is made on the matter. Levin, however, failed to fill in all the necessary positions. The panel should be made up of a retired Supreme Court justice as chairperson, appointed by the Supreme Court president and by the approval of the justice minister; a former justice minister or attorney-general, chosen by the government; an MK, selected by the Knesset's Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee; a lawyer, determined by the Israel Bar Association; and a legal academic, chosen by the deans of the law faculties. BAHARAV-MIARA noted on Monday that the decision ensures that there will be no objective third-party weighing in on the matter. Moreover, she said, the decision itself contradicts Israeli legal precedence, has no factual or legal support, was rushed and not thorough, and effectively erases and ignores everything studied and gleaned from the Bar-On-Hebron affair. 'After the government failed to staff the committee based on the accepted and precedented protocols, it simply moved to change them in a hasty and faulty method,' wrote the A-G. 'What is so dangerous about this method is that it grants complete political control over the process. From now on, any government will be able to dismiss any attorney-general with a simple ministerial committee vote,' she said. 'Without any checks and balances or a filtering system against foreign influences over a process that must remain objective and not bend to the vision of any one government,' Baharav-Miara continued, 'the government will, in this, be operating against the law.' The government wrote last month in its position, penned by Levin and by Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli (Likud) – who chairs the selection committee – that it could fill the positions for this panel because all relevant former attorneys-general and justice ministers opposed the government's decision. This decision will affect the corpus of the role itself, Baharav-Miara wrote, changing it from an objective, merit-based role to one that is dependent on loyalty to the sitting government. In Israel, the legislative and executive branches of the government are not truly split. The parliament (Knesset), which is the legislative branch, has 120 permanent members elected by proportional representation, while the government, which is the executive branch, is comprised of ministers. All these ministers, including the premier, are typically also MKs. Further, members of the executive branch are part of the legislature, and the executive constantly depends on Knesset support to manifest its policies. This is the basis for the argument for a strong judiciary, including the legal advisory. As mentioned, proponents argue that the work relationship between the legal advisory and the government has become alarmingly unproductive, necessitating the A-G's dismissal. Furthermore, they claim that, over the years, the legal advisory has usurped more power than it should have, and that the Shamgar Commission conditioned the hiring and dismissal of an A-G on its timeliness. In other words, the process should be efficient and flow smoothly. Baharav-Miara addressed this point by saying that the commission was not faced with the situation where the sitting prime minister was knee-deep in a criminal trial. What her dismissal means in this case, the A-G wrote, is an attempt to replace the chief prosecutor against a prime minister who is under trial, right in the middle of the cross-examination section of the proceedings. This points to 'a clear and alarming conflict of interest by the government toward the A-G,' Baharav-Miara said. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Karhi orders staff to ignore A-G, in defiance of High Court injunction on firing
In response, Yair Lapid said his faction would file a complaint with police against the communications minister for incitement and sedition. Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi on Tuesday instructed his staff against recognizing the authority of the Attorney-General's Office, in contempt of a High Court injunction against Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara's dismissal. On Monday, the government unanimously approved Justice Minister Yariv Levin's proposal to dismiss Baharav-Miara. In response, the High Court of Justice issued an injunction against the decision. In the latest clash between the judiciary and the government, the court said no aspect of the attorney-general's position is to be changed until a decision is handed down and that the government cannot name a replacement. Karhi: A-G's legal advice now devoid of any validity In a memo sent to Communications Ministry staff, Karhi insisted that Baharav-Miara's office is 'no longer authorized to issue legal opinions,' adding that if it does, such advice would be 'devoid of any validity.' He further instructed the ministry's staff not to request any legal advice from the A-G's Office without his office's approval. According to the minister, Baharv-Miara and her staff's status is 'no different than any other citizen.' Although Baharav-Miara has not officially been ousted from her role, cabinet ministers, including Karhi, have said they would stop inviting her to government hearings and committee meetings effective immediately. In a ruling last month, Supreme Court Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg said no measure to dismiss the attorney-general would be valid until the decision is reviewed by the court. In response to Karhi's memo, opposition leader MK Yair Lapid said the ministry's employees 'have no reason to accept the authority of the communications minister, respect his directives, obey his orders, or comply with the void instructions of a criminal minister.' Lapid further noted that his Yesh Atid faction would file a complaint against Karhi with the police on the grounds of incitement and sedition. Israeli NGO calls on ministry staff to ignore Karhi's memo The Zulat Institute for Equality and Human Rights called the minister a 'criminal' in its response to the memo, adding that Karhi 'seeks to turn his ministry's employees into criminals themselves through an intimidation campaign.' Zulat noted that the Attorney-General's Office was in the process of blocking Karhi's comprehensive plan to overhaul the broadcasting landscape, which the institute said would 'seriously harm free media.' Therefore, it noted, Karhi was 'tainted with a serious conflict of interest and is in contempt of court,' calling on Communications Ministry staff to 'completely ignore' his memo. Sarah Ben-Nun contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword
