Hawa Omar Osman Saleh: New Sudan Prosecution for Influencing Justice

• Hawa Omar Osman Saleh faces new charges in Sudan for allegedly influencing justice and insulting a public official.
• The charges stem from a social media video criticizing the initial verdict in her daughter's gang-rape case.
• She is currently serving a six-month sentence for similar public criticism and faces a substantial, unaffordable fine.
• The new complaint was filed by the former trial judge who initially presided over her daughter's rape trial, raising procedural fairness concerns.
• In a separate development, all three defendants in the gang-rape case were later sentenced to life imprisonment on appeal.

Ms. Saleh's family has raised serious questions regarding the procedural fairness of the new complaint, alleging that former trial judge Rahma is acting in the dual capacity of both complainant and witness in the proceedings against her.

Hawa Omar Osman Saleh, a mother currently incarcerated, is slated to appear before the Sennar Criminal Court on November 10 for new charges. This hearing occurs just 19 days before she is due to complete a six-month prison sentence, highlighting the immediate and ongoing legal pressures she faces.

The fresh complaint was initiated by former trial judge Ismail Awad Rahma, who previously presided over her daughter's gang-rape case. Ms. Saleh stands accused of violating Articles 115 and 116 of Sudan's 1991 Criminal Act, which pertain to influencing the course of justice and insulting a public official during judicial proceedings. Each of these charges carries potential penalties including up to three months imprisonment, a fine, or both, underscoring the significant legal risks in Sudan for individuals who publicly criticize judicial proceedings or rulings.

The new legal action against Ms. Saleh stems from a video she disseminated on social media. This video followed the initial verdict in her daughter's gang-rape case, where a Sennar first-instance court issued sentences in December 2025. In that ruling, two of the three convicted men received three-year prison terms, while the third was ordered to receive 100 lashes.

The family of the victim expressed significant outrage over these sentences, especially considering that judicial confessions, a forensic report, and a forensic doctor's testimony had all corroborated the assault. Ms. Saleh publicly criticized the judgment in her social media broadcast, asserting that the sentences effectively rewarded the perpetrators rather than adequately punishing them. Her current six-month imprisonment and an outstanding SDG5 billion fine, which her family claims she cannot afford, resulted from a separate case brought by her former lawyer, Farah Mubarak, concerning her public criticism of the appeal proceedings. An appeals court upheld this sentence on August 27, 2026.

The charges under Sudan's 1991 Criminal Act, specifically Articles 115 and 116, underscore the stringent legal framework governing public commentary on judicial matters. These articles criminalize actions perceived as influencing justice or disrespecting public officials within the legal system, carrying significant penalties. Lawyers must advise clients on the strict interpretation and enforcement of these articles, even when expressing outrage over perceived injustices.

Ms. Saleh's family has raised serious questions regarding the procedural fairness of the new complaint, alleging that former trial judge Rahma is acting in the dual capacity of both complainant and witness in the proceedings against her. This situation raises potential procedural fairness concerns. Furthermore, the family has refuted claims that Ms. Saleh's lawyer, identified as Nahed, encouraged her to record the controversial video, clarifying that the lawyer had merely offered consolation after the initial verdict and did not advocate for its publication. A petition for clemency, submitted approximately six weeks prior to the report to waive the SDG5 billion fine due to Ms. Saleh's financial and family circumstances, has yet to receive a response, with the family instead receiving notification of the new court hearing.

In a subsequent and significant development concerning the underlying gang-rape case, Sennar Court of Appeal judge Abdullah Omar sentenced all three defendants to life imprisonment on September 15, 2026. This ruling was made under Article 149 of Sudan's 1991 Criminal Act, which addresses rape. The life sentences superseded the original, lighter punishments imposed by the first-instance court.

Notably, this decision followed an earlier announcement on August 29, where Judge Omar initially stated his intention not to comply with a Supreme Court directive to prosecute the defendants under the rape provision. However, a source close to the proceedings indicated that the judge later reversed his stance after a thorough review of the case file, acknowledging that his initial decision was made without proper examination.

This case highlights the significant legal risks in Sudan for individuals who publicly criticize judicial proceedings or rulings. Lawyers must advise clients on the strict interpretation and enforcement of Articles 115 and 116 of Sudan's 1991 Criminal Act, which criminalize influencing justice and insulting officials, even when expressing outrage over perceived injustices, and be aware of potential procedural fairness concerns when a judge acts as both complainant and witness.

Source: Original reporting via Radio Dabanga