Parliament Rejects Lifting Immunity for MP Hamad Al Doy Amid Defamation Allegations

Mohammed Darwish

TDT| Manama

In a closed-door session today, Parliament voted overwhelmingly to allow MP Hamad Al Doy to retain his parliamentary immunity, rejecting a request from the Public Prosecution.

Thirty MPs supported the recommendation by the Legislative and Legal Affairs Committee to block efforts to lift Al Doy's immunity, ensuring he remains protected from legal proceedings tied to his parliamentary role. 

The case against Al Doy stems from allegations brought forward by the Amwaj Islands Central Owners Association, accusing him of defamation. The controversy began during a parliamentary session in April when Al Doy claimed there was evidence of “unethical practices” occurring in Amwaj Islands, a statement that sparked immediate backlash. 

Following his remarks, the Owners Association swiftly issued a press release announcing plans to pursue legal action. Their complaint highlighted Al Doy's statements during the parliamentary session, as well as his subsequent comments and tweets, which they argue amounted to defamation. According to the Association, his claims were baseless and damaging, portraying the island in a negative light. 

The Public Prosecution formally requested Parliament to lift Al Doy's immunity, a procedural requirement for initiating legal proceedings against sitting MPs. However, Al Doy dismissed the allegations, describing them as an attempt to mischaracterize his remarks and deflect attention from the issues he raised. 

Parliament's decision to uphold Al Doy's immunity effectively halts legal action for now, underscoring the body’s power to shield its members from prosecution under Bahraini law. This move, however, is likely to fuel ongoing debates about the balance between parliamentary immunity and accountability, particularly in cases involving contentious public statements. 

While Al Doy has not wavered in his assertions about Amwaj Islands, today's vote shields him from facing legal consequences, at least in the immediate term. For the complainants, the rejection represents a roadblock in their pursuit of legal redress, leaving the allegations - and the broader implications for parliamentary conduct - unresolved.