Defamation in the UAE: a criminal complaint, not a civil claim

For anyone advised in a common-law system, defamation in the United Arab Emirates requires setting aside several assumptions at once. It is not primarily a tort. It is not begun by a letter before action. And the defence that resolves most common-law claims — that the statement was true — does not operate in the same way at all.

The instruments

Two overlapping regimes apply.

The Penal Code, Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021, in force since January 2022, contains the general offences:

• Article 425 — defamation by publicity. Attributing to another, by any means of publicity, a fact exposing them to punishment or to contempt. Up to two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to AED 20,000. Aggravating circumstances include that the victim is a public official acting in connection with their duties, that the imputation touches family honour or reputation, that there was an unlawful purpose, or that publication was in newspapers or printed matter.
• Article 426 — insult. The related offence of insult sits alongside defamation in the same part of the Code. Where a penalty figure matters to a decision, it should be confirmed against the current text rather than taken from summary commentary, which is inconsistent on this article.
• Article 427 — defamation or insult by telephone, or in the victim’s presence before others. Up to six months and/or AED 5,000. Where the statement is made in private, or in a direct message to the victim alone with no third party present, the penalty is a fine of up to AED 5,000 only, with no custodial element.

The cybercrime law, Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021, contains the online-specific offences and much heavier penalties. Article 43 covers online insult and defamation, carrying imprisonment and/or a fine of AED 250,000 to 500,000. Article 44 covers publishing images without consent. See The UAE cybercrime law.

The practical consequence of the two-regime structure is that the same words attract a far heavier penalty when published online than when spoken. A remark that would carry a AED 5,000 fine if made on a telephone call carries a minimum of AED 250,000 if posted to a social media account.

It begins with a complaint

Defamation and insult are complaint crimes. Under Article 11 of the Criminal Procedures Law, Federal Decree-Law No. 38 of 2022, criminal proceedings for insult and slander of people cannot be commenced without a complaint from the victim or their representative.

The time limit is three months, and the drafting matters:

The complaint shall not be admitted after three months following the date on which the victim becomes aware of the crime and its perpetrator.

Both limbs must be satisfied. Time runs from knowledge of the wrongdoer’s identity, not merely from knowledge of the publication. For a victim of an anonymous account, that means the three-month clock has not started while the account remains unidentified — an important point, and one that cuts against the instinct to rush.

Withdrawal. Under Article 17 of the same law, the complainant may waive the complaint at any time before final judgment, and the waiver terminates the action. Where there are multiple victims, all must waive; a waiver as against one accused benefits all of them.

This is the feature that shapes UAE defamation practice more than any other. The complainant holds, throughout, the ability to end the proceedings. That makes a complaint an unusually strong settlement instrument — and it makes early, structured negotiation far more productive than in a jurisdiction where the state controls the prosecution once it has begun.

Truth is not a general defence

This is the point that most needs stating plainly, because it inverts the common-law starting position.

In the UAE, a statement may be criminally defamatory even if it is true, and even if it was made in good faith. There is no general justification defence, no honest-opinion defence in the common-law sense, and no public-interest or responsible-journalism privilege of the kind developed in English and Kenyan law.

A truthful negative review, an accurate account of a business dispute, a factual complaint about an employer, a correct statement that someone has been sued — each of these can found a criminal complaint.

There is one long-standing qualification. Emirati law has historically recognised a narrow proof-of-truth exception where the imputation is directed at a public servant or a person charged with a public service and concerns a fact connected with their employment, subject to evidential limits — including restrictions on proving facts that are old, time-barred, or already adjudicated. The exception exists in principle; the current article number and its precise terms under the 2021 Penal Code should be confirmed against the text before it is relied on. It is a narrow gateway, not a general public-interest defence.

For clients operating across both systems the practical guidance is simple and should be given early: advice about what may safely be published in Kenya does not transfer to the UAE. Content that is defensible in Nairobi may be prosecutable in Dubai, and the fact that it was posted from Kenya does not necessarily resolve the problem, because the cybercrime law reaches conduct abroad in defined cases — including where the offence harms a UAE national or resident. That gateway has to be established rather than assumed, but it is available and it is wide.

The civil route

A separate civil claim for compensation is available, and it has been recast recently.

The Civil Transactions Law was replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, which came into force on 1 June 2026. Its harmful-act provisions include:

• Article 246 — the core rule: every act causing harm to another obliges its perpetrator to compensate for the damage, even if the perpetrator lacks discernment.
• Article 254 — the key provision for reputational claims: liability includes moral harm, and an infringement on another’s freedom, honour, reputation, social standing or financial status constitutes moral harm. It extends to spouses and relatives to the second degree.
• Article 255 — the measure of damages: actual loss plus lost profit as natural consequences.
• Article 257 — clauses excluding or limiting harmful-act liability are void.
• Article 258 — limitation: three years from awareness of the damage and the responsible party, with a fifteen-year long-stop from occurrence.

Because the new code came into force only in mid-2026, transitional questions arise for conduct that predates it, and the equivalent provisions of the repealed 1985 code may still govern older facts.

A victim may join the criminal proceedings as a civil claimant, or bring a separate civil action. Joining the criminal case is generally quicker; a separate action gives more control over the pleaded loss.

How it actually proceeds

The sequence is well established:

1. Complaint at a police station, or through one of the electronic reporting channels — the Ministry of Interior eCrimes platform, Dubai Police’s eCrime service, Abu Dhabi’s Aman service, or the Federal Public Prosecution’s reporting application.
2. Statements taken, and referral to the Public Prosecution, ordinarily within 48 hours.
3. Prosecution decision — the accused is questioned within 24 hours and a decision made on arrest or release.
4. Misdemeanour Court as the court of first instance, with Appeal and Cassation above it.

Onshore courts sit in Arabic. The DIFC and ADGM Courts are English-language common-law courts but have no criminal jurisdiction over defamation, and will not hear a general online-harm claim absent a jurisdictional connection or an opt-in agreement.

Practical implications

If you are the complainant. Preserve the evidence before doing anything else — the material will very often be deleted once a complaint is made. Establish the perpetrator’s identity if you can, and note that the three-month clock is tied to that identification. Consider what outcome you actually want: removal and an apology are frequently achievable through the withdrawal mechanism, and are frequently more valuable than a conviction.

If you are the subject of a complaint. Take it seriously and take advice immediately. A criminal complaint in the UAE can result in a travel ban and detention pending resolution, and the absence of a general truth defence means that being right is not, by itself, an answer. Engagement with the complainant, aimed at a waiver before final judgment, is often the most effective course. Note also that the cybercrime law expressly lists its defamation and image-publication offences among those open to amicable settlement, available while the case is live and until judgment becomes final.

If you publish. Assume that anything critical of an identifiable person or business, published where it can be read in the UAE, carries criminal exposure regardless of accuracy. That is not a reason never to publish; it is a reason to take advice on the specific content before doing so, and to understand that the risk assessment is different from the one that applies elsewhere.