IOHR disputes the CMC's decision punishing presenter Ahmed Al-Tayeb for a guest's words he didn't say. The penalty—suspending the show and barring him—violates international standards protecting journalists. IOHR demands rescinding the ban, lifting the suspension, and establishing clear written rules confining responsibility to actual speakers, not broadcasters.
21 August 2026
The Iraqi Observatory for Human Rights (IOHR) calls on the Communications and Media Commission (CMC) to reconsider its Decision No. (7/ع/9967) of 17 August 2026, which penalised Ahmed Al-Tayeb, host of the programme Al-Thamina ("The Eighth"), over words he did not utter. The decision suspended the programme for fifteen days, barred its presenter from appearing on air for the same period, and required Al-Rasheed TV to issue a formal apology within five days.
The first thing that stands out is that the decision attributes no statement whatsoever to the presenter. Its own text expressly acknowledges that the offending remarks were made by a guest on the episode broadcast on 12 August 2026, and that what is held against Al-Tayeb is his failure "to interrupt the guest or prevent him from continuing."
The penalty, in other words, was imposed not for something said, but for a presumed failure to act. The sole provision invoked is Chapter Two, Article 1 (prohibition of incitement to violence and hatred) — a provision concerned with the content of speech and with the person who utters it. Nowhere does the decision cite any rule imposing on a presenter a duty to cut off a guest, nor any basis for holding him liable for breaching such a duty.
The standard applied is, moreover, impossible to meet in practice. The presenter's conduct was assessed days later, from a recording that can be paused, replayed and listened to repeatedly — while he was expected to decide within seconds, live on air, hearing the sentence for the first time and with no way of knowing where it would end. The decision makes no mention of how long the remarks lasted, or of whether the presenter objected, qualified what was said, or steered the discussion elsewhere. Without these elements, the assessment ceases to be a judgement of professional performance and becomes a judgement of intent.
The governing principle, in law as in the profession, is that responsibility for speech rests with the speaker. This is settled international doctrine, established by the European Court of Human Rights in Jersild v. Denmark (1994), which held that punishing a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview seriously impairs the press's contribution to public debate, and found such punishment to be a violation of freedom of expression.
The suspension of the broadcast, for its part, is a penalty that reaches well beyond the person accused of the violation. Taking the programme off air for fifteen days affects production, editorial and directing staff who had nothing to do with the incident, and deprives an audience of a source of information by administrative fiat — adding nothing to the handling of the alleged violation once its author has been held to account. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Iraq, requires that any restriction on freedom of expression be necessary and proportionate, while Article 38 of the Iraqi Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and of the press in a manner that does not impair the essence of the right.
Two further observations concern the formal basis of the decision. It was issued by the head of the CMC's executive body, although the Commission itself stated in an earlier announcement that any regulatory measure must, as a matter of law, follow the prescribed procedure under the powers conferred by CPA Order No. (65) of 2004, and that decisions relating to content are issued by the Board of Commissioners.
IOHR asks the Commission to clarify the legal basis on which its executive body may impose individual penalties on journalists and media outlets. Compelling a channel to issue a formal apology under threat of further measures is, in addition, an order to express a particular position — something that cannot properly be described as a professional regulatory measure.
On this basis, the Iraqi Observatory for Human Rights calls for the ban on Ahmed Al-Tayeb's appearances to be revoked, the suspension of Al-Thamina to be lifted, and the mandatory apology requirement to be withdrawn.
IOHR further calls for the adoption of a clear written rule defining the responsibilities of a presenter during live broadcasts and confining liability for the content of any statement to the person who makes it; for suspension decisions to be reasoned by measurable criteria published in advance, rather than left to after-the-fact assessment open to interpretation; and for the Commission's decisions to be subject to genuine judicial review, instead of confining appeals to an internal committee of the Commission itself. IOHR also renews its call on the Council of Representatives to review Order No. (65) of 2004 and to enact legislation defining the Commission's powers with precision — at a political juncture in which Iraqis' right of access to information matters more than ever.
