The five-year prison sentence imposed on Mauritanian journalist and activist Maimouna Mint Ahmed Souleimane, known as "Warda," exemplifies the growing use of criminal sanctions and state-security provisions to restrict peaceful expression in Mauritania.

The imposition of three years of effective imprisonment for social media expression raises serious concerns about freedom of expression, judicial independence, and respect for due process. More broadly, the case highlights the increasingly precarious environment facing journalists, activists, and government critics, and calls into question Mauritania's compliance with its international human rights obligations.

Background

On 25 August 2026, the Criminal Chamber of the Nouakchott West Court sentenced Maimouna Mint Ahmed Souleimane ("Warda") to five years' imprisonment, three years of which are to be served. She was convicted of "inciting citizens to take up arms against the state" and "insulting and offending the President of the Republic" in connection with social media posts.

Before her imprisonment, Maimouna was placed under judicial supervision. Authorities alleged that her detention resulted from a breach of its conditions, while her defence challenged the legality of the measure.

The case follows previous arrests linked to her online expression and her activism within the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement (IRA). According to local reports, she was detained in April 2025 over views expressed publicly and released without conviction. She was arrested again in October 2025 following a social media post calling for peaceful protest against alleged systemic discrimination.

Taken together, these incidents raise concerns about the use of criminal proceedings and broadly framed state-security offences to restrict peaceful expression and human rights advocacy.

Institutional Position

Freedom of expression protects political speech, criticism of public officials, and debate on matters of public interest. Public officials, including heads of state, must tolerate a wider degree of scrutiny and criticism. Any restriction on expression must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate.

Criminal liability for incitement to violence requires a direct and intentional nexus between the expression concerned and a real and imminent risk of violence. Political criticism, controversial commentary, or opposition advocacy do not, by themselves, satisfy this threshold. The use of broadly framed state-security offences against political expression risks criminalizing legitimate dissent and chilling civic participation.

The imposition of three years of imprisonment for online expression, absent publicly established evidence meeting this threshold, raises serious concerns regarding legality, necessity, and proportionality. Protecting the authority or reputation of state institutions cannot justify custodial penalties for peaceful criticism of public officials.

The revocation of Maimouna's judicial supervision and her subsequent detention likewise warrant scrutiny. Any alleged breach of supervision conditions must be clearly established, subject to effective judicial review, and assessed against less restrictive alternatives. She must also be guaranteed all fair-trial rights, including access to counsel, adequate time and facilities to prepare her defence, and an effective opportunity to challenge her conviction before an independent and impartial tribunal.

Applicable Legal Framework

Mauritania is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including Article 19, which protects freedom of opinion and expression, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, particularly Article 9, which guarantees the right to receive information and express and disseminate opinions. The requirements of legality, necessity, proportionality, personal liberty, and fair trial further require that any restriction on these rights have a clear legal basis, pursue a legitimate purpose, and remain subject to effective judicial safeguards. These standards prohibit the use of criminal proceedings to punish peaceful political expression or restrict legitimate civic participation.

Demands Aligned with International Human Rights Principles

Freedom of expression requires more than formal legal guarantees. Criminal law must not be used to silence criticism, suppress peaceful dissent, or deter participation in public affairs. Accountability for genuine criminal conduct must be pursued through fair and independent proceedings, while peaceful political expression must remain protected.

Women Journalists Without Chains
Geneva, Switzerland — September 24, 2026