A Saudi Arabian dissident has been languishing in a Bulgarian detention center for over three years despite court orders for his release. Abdulrahman Al-Khalidi, an exiled pro-democracy activist, remains under threat of forced deportation to Saudi Arabia. His case has raised alarms among human rights organizations, which point to legal violations and the grave dangers he would face if returned to Saudi authorities.
Al-Khalidi is a well-known Saudi activist and former member of the “Bees Army”, an online pro-democracy network associated with slain journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The “Bees Army” was a social media movement that countered pro-government propaganda and cyber trolls in Saudi Arabia. For more than a decade, Al-Khalidi advocated for democratic reforms and prisoners’ rights in Saudi Arabia, drawing the ire of the authorities. Facing increasing harassment and death threats, he fled Saudi Arabia in 2013 for safety abroad.
During his years in exile, Al-Khalidi continued to speak out against the Saudi Monarchy. He wrote articles critical of Saudi policies and collaborated with other prominent dissidents, including individuals close to Khashoggi and activists like Omar Abdulaziz. In 2018, after Khashoggi’s murder in Istanbul by Saudi agents, Al-Khalidi grew more fearful for his own life. He left Turkey and travelled to Europe on foot, eventually entering Bulgaria in late 2021 to seek political asylum. By then, Saudi state-linked media had labeled him a “traitor,” and pro-regime trolls were targeting him online, underscoring the danger he faced if he ever returned.
Upon crossing the border into Bulgaria in October 2021, Al-Khalidi was immediately detained by Bulgarian authorities. He formally applied for asylum on 16 November 2021, explaining that his pro-democracy activism made him a target for persecution in Saudi Arabia. However, the Bulgarian State Agency for Refugees rejected his asylum request in May 2022, astonishingly arguing that Saudi Arabia had “undertaken measures to democratize society,” and thus claimed he would not face danger. Al-Khalidi challenged this decision in court. A Bulgarian administrative court initially upheld the rejection, but in September 2023 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled those decisions due to procedural irregularities and ordered a retrial of his asylum case. As a result, his asylum claim was re-opened in early 2024 and remains under adjudication – meaning Al-Khalidi is still legally an asylum-seeker awaiting a final decision.
Despite his pending asylum case, Bulgarian authorities have kept Al-Khalidi behind bars at the Busmantsi detention centre, de facto prison or “Special home for the temporary accommodation of foreigners” as official name, near Sofia since 2021. A center that is famous as “Europe’s Guantanamo” for human right activists. He has now spent over 3.5 years in administrative detention without any criminal charges. This prolonged confinement appears to contravene European standards, which require that detention of asylum-seekers be used only as a last resort and for the shortest time necessary. EU directives limit the detention of people seeking protection and emphasize exploring alternatives, raising concerns that Al-Khalidi’s continued detention is excessive and unlawful.
In early 2025, Bulgarian courts issued multiple rulings in Al-Khalidi’s favor, ordering his release from detention. On January 18, 2025, the Administrative Court in Sofia ruled that his ongoing “asylum detention” was unjustified and ordered him freed. Again on March 26, 2025, the same court reaffirmed that Al-Khalidi should be released immediately. These decisions vindicated his lawyers’ arguments that there were no legal grounds to keep him locked up while his asylum proceedings were unresolved. Under Bulgarian and EU law, an asylum-seeker generally cannot be deported – or indefinitely detained awaiting deportation – while their claim for protection is still under review.
Instead of obeying the court, however, the Bulgarian authorities – specifically the State Agency for National Security (SANS) – took extraordinary measures to circumvent the judges’ orders. On March 28, just two days after the latest court ruling, immigration officers abruptly removed Al-Khalidi from the refugee detention section under the pretext of a bureaucratic transfer. With no prior notice, SANS reclassified his detention status from “asylum detention” to “expulsion detention”, moving him into a section reserved for people awaiting deportation. Essentially, rather than freeing Al-Khalidi, officials switched the legal basis of his captivity – a maneuver that human rights observers say flouts the rule of law. “It was a deception,” Al-Khalidi said in a message to supporters. “They pretended they were releasing me in compliance with the court decision, only to transfer me to the deportation wing”.
Bulgarian security officials have justified their defiance by pointing to a secretive expulsion order that SANS had issued earlier. In February 2024, SANS designated Al-Khalidi as a national security threat and ordered his forcible expulsion to Saudi Arabia on those unspecified grounds. That expulsion order was later upheld by a Sofia city court on October 21, 2024. However, Al-Khalidi’s lawyers note – and Bulgarian law affirms – that such an expulsion cannot be carried out while his asylum appeals are pending, especially given the risk of serious harm in Saudi Arabia. By pressing forward as if to execute the expulsion, Bulgarian authorities are effectively pitting the national security decree against the asylum process and court rulings. Legal experts have condemned this as an abuse of power: ignoring judicial release orders not only violates Al-Khalidi’s rights, but also undermines the independence of Bulgaria’s own courts.
Allegations of Mistreatment in Custody
Al-Khalidi’s ordeal has been compounded by disturbing reports of mistreatment during his detention. On March 28, when officers transferred him to the deportation section, Al-Khalidi says they confiscated his phone and denied him access to his lawyer. According to Al-Khalidi’s account, he was physically restrained and coerced into signing documents in Bulgarian – a language he does not understand – under the threat that refusal would cost him any right to appeal. He signed the papers out of fear, later learning they were forms related to his expulsion. He was not provided any translation or allowed to contact his attorney during this process. Such treatment raises serious concerns about violations of due process, as the authorities essentially strong-armed a detainee to sign away his rights without counsel present.
This incident is not the first allegation of abuse. In early April 2024, while detained at Busmantsi, Al-Khalidi was reportedly beaten by detention center officers in a punitive incident. According to an informed source cited by Human Rights Watch, guards assaulted Al-Khalidi after he offered food to fellow detainees who were fasting for Ramadan. He was punched, choked, and handcuffed for nearly an hour, leaving him with bruises and breathing difficulties. Despite his injuries, he was denied medical attention in the aftermath. Fellow detainees have also described generally harsh conditions in the facility, including inadequate healthcare and periodic abuse by staff. These claims prompted rights groups to call for an independent investigation, but there has been little indication of accountability for the officers involved. The prolonged and arbitrary nature of Al-Khalidi’s detention, coupled with such mistreatment, has taken a severe toll on his physical and mental well-being, his supporters say. At one point in 2024, Al-Khalidi undertook a hunger strike to protest his indefinite detention, and activists in Sofia held demonstrations calling for his freedom.
Risk of Deportation to Saudi Arabia
The stakes for Al-Khalidi could not be higher should Bulgaria proceed with deportation. Saudi Arabia has a well-documented pattern of cracking down on dissidents and critics of the government. Peaceful activists, journalists, and even ordinary social media users in Saudi Arabia have received draconian prison sentences simply for speaking out. Human rights monitors report that in recent years, Saudi courts have imposed decades-long prison terms on individuals for critical tweets or advocacy, often following unfair trials. For example, Saudi women’s rights defenders and online activists have been sentenced to 20, 30, even 45 years in prison in some egregious cases. Torture and ill-treatment of detainees – including methods like flogging, electric shocks, and prolonged solitary confinement – have also been extensively reported by organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Al-Khalidi would almost certainly face persecution if sent back to Saudi Arabia. As a high-profile dissident who openly criticized the Saudi government, he is at serious risk of arbitrary arrest, torture, and an unfair trial on politically motivated charges. Amnesty International warns that he could be subjected to enforced disappearance or lengthy imprisonment given the fate of other Saudi activists who have been forcibly returned from abroad. Al-Khalidi has already been tried in absentia in Saudi Arabia, his family says, for his involvement in opposition activities. This means he could be immediately detained upon arrival and face a predetermined harsh sentence. “If Bulgarian authorities deport him, he will be at real risk of persecution, including arbitrary detention and torture,” Amnesty International stated in an urgent appeal, noting that his peaceful activism would likely be treated as a criminal offense by the Saudi regime. Human Rights Watch likewise cautions that sending Al-Khalidi into the hands of Saudi security would violate Bulgaria’s duty to protect asylum seekers from harm, effectively making the Bulgarian government complicit in any abuse he suffers thereafter.
Your support helps keep this space alive but also ensures that these critical discussions remain accessible to all.
The Busmantsi detention centre
Asylum Right in EU
Al-Khalidi’s case has become a test of international human rights principles, particularly the principle of non-refoulement – the cornerstone of asylum law that prohibits governments from sending a person to a country where they face a real risk of severe harm. Non-refoulement is enshrined in multiple treaties binding on Bulgaria. Article 33 of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention explicitly forbids expelling or returning (“refouling”) a refugee to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened.
Similarly, Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights bar the transfer of anyone to a state where they would likely be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment. Notably, unlike some other legal obligations, the ban on refoulement admits no exceptions – even persons deemed security risks cannot be expelled to a country where they may be tortured or persecuted. In the European Union context, Article 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights reinforces this prohibition, and EU asylum directives require that each asylum claim be fully examined before any removal is carried out.
Bulgaria’s actions so far contravene these obligations. By detaining Al-Khalidi for an extended period and attempting to deport him despite the evident dangers, Bulgarian authorities risk breaching both EU law and their own domestic laws. In fact, the Bulgarian Constitution itself (Article 27(2)) promises asylum to foreigners persecuted for their beliefs or activities in defense of human rights.
In recent years, many human rights activists in Europe—particularly in countries like Greece and Italy—have adopted a language centered on immigration and migration rights. While these terms are not inherently wrong, their growing use at the expense of a clear and forceful defense of asylum rights has become a dangerous trend. The case of Abdulrahman Al-Khalidi in Bulgaria is a stark reminder of what is at stake when the specific protections enshrined in asylum law are blurred into broader, more ambiguous narratives of “migration management.”
Activists often speak about the dignity of all people on the move, demand humane border policies, and oppose deportations in general. But when these demands are framed only in terms of “migration” or “immigration,” they risk playing into the hands of governments that treat asylum seekers, economic migrants, and irregular entrants as one and the same—removing the legal obligation to protect those who flee persecution. This imprecise language helps normalize practices that violate international law, such as arbitrary detention, forced returns, or the undermining of the non-refoulement principle.
The European Union has clearly defined asylum procedures, grounded in international human rights law, refugee conventions, and its own Charter of Fundamental Rights. These rules are not optional. But as seen in Al-Khalidi’s case, states are finding legal loopholes or openly violating court orders, knowing that political pressure is low. Why? Because many advocacy groups no longer center their campaigns on the specific and urgent legal category of asylum. The silence or vagueness on asylum rights weakens public understanding of the special protections that people like Al-Khalidi are entitled to—and gives governments space to ignore them.
If human rights activists truly want to challenge the erosion of protections in Europe, they must shift the political focus back to asylum. No political or ideological interest should ever justify the denial of fundamental human rights. That means speaking clearly and consistently about asylum rights, defending legal frameworks already in place, and exposing every case where these rights are denied or manipulated. The principle of asylum is not just another subcategory of migration. It is the legal and moral line that Europe promised never to cross. And yet, it is being crossed—quietly, and with little resistance.
United Nations experts have underscored that returning Al-Khalidi under these circumstances would violate Bulgaria’s international commitments. Mary Lawlor, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, warned that deporting Al-Khalidi would run counter to the principle of non-refoulement, given Saudi Arabia’s documented record of severe reprisals against human rights defenders. The European Court of Human Rights has in past cases penalized countries for similar expulsions, emphasizing that the risk of torture or ill-treatment “trumps” other considerations like national security. This means Bulgaria is legally obligated to protect Al-Khalidi until it can ensure he will not face harm elsewhere.
What you think?