Is Truth a Defence to Defamation in UAE? Usually Not

The offence of attributing an incident, in Article 425 of the Crimes and Penalties Law, is defined by the effect of the allegation. It punishes anyone who, through any means of publicity, attributes to another person an incident "that would make him subject to punishment or expose him to public hatred or contempt". The wording turns on what the allegation would do, not on whether it is false. Proof that the incident happened is allowed as a defence only in the circumstances set out in Article 428.

A note on terms. The official English translation calls this offence "libel" (qadhf, Article 425) and calls an insult that attributes no particular incident "slander" (sabb, Article 426). In everyday English, libel is written and slander is spoken, so the translation can mislead. In UAE law the line is whether a particular incident is attributed. Truth can only matter where one is, because an insult asserts nothing that could be proved.

Online, the same allegation falls under Article 43 of the Cybercrime Decree-Law, with a heavier penalty, and the position on truth is less clear still. The guide to defamation in UAE law sets out every offence and penalty; this one deals with truth.

The article reads: "There is no crime if the perpetrator proves the incident which attributed to the victim, whenever such attribution is against a public servant or a person entrusted with a public service and whenever said incident is connected with the job or service." Every condition has to be met. An allegation about an official's private life is outside it. So is an allegation about a private employer, a landlord, a business or a neighbour, however well documented.

The article then closes the door on older material. Proof is not allowed if more than five years have passed since the incident occurred, or if the crime has lapsed or the judgment has been forfeited.

Article 43 of Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 punishes whoever uses an information network, IT equipment or an information system and "insults another or attributes a quality to him that would make that person subject to punishment or contempt by third parties". The penalty is imprisonment and/or a fine of AED 250,000 to AED 500,000. Its second paragraph makes it an aggravating circumstance where the offence is committed against a public official or a person entrusted with a public service during or because of the performance of their work.

Article 428 sits in the Penal Code, and we have not found a primary text settling whether it also applies to the online offence. Until a UAE lawyer has advised on your facts, do not rely on it for a post, a video or a comment. The route the law itself protects is a good-faith report to the authorities under Article 430, set out below.

Article 431 begins with intrusion: eavesdropping on or recording private conversations, or photographing a person in a private place, without consent. It then adds: "The same penalty shall apply if a person publishes, by any means of publicity, news, photos or comments related to the private or family life secrets of individuals, even if they are true." Devices are confiscated and recordings erased.

The test is the nature of the information, not its accuracy. Matters such as a person's health, relationships, family disputes or what happens inside their home can fall within private or family life. Publishing them through any means of publicity, which Article 10 defines to include public speech and writings, pictures and audio or visual materials circulated by any means, can be an offence even where every word is accurate.

Article 44 is headed "Revealing Secrets and Invasion of Privacy". It applies where someone uses an information network, information system or IT equipment to invade "the privacy or sanctity of private or familial life of someone without his consent". Article 44(3) says in terms that truth is no answer: it covers publishing material "even if it is true and genuine". What it requires instead is an invasion of private or family life without consent and an intention of harming the person. Sharing someone's private messages, photos or location to shame them can fall within it.

The final paragraph of Article 44 covers the opposite case, where the material is not genuine. Using an information system or IT equipment to modify or process any record, photo or scene with the intention of defaming or insulting another person carries imprisonment of at least one year and/or a fine of AED 250,000 to AED 500,000. A genuine private image used to harm someone can fall under Article 44(3), and a doctored one under the final paragraph.

The acts Article 44 lists include:

Article 430 matters most to anyone holding a true allegation against a private person or a company. It says there is no crime "if an individual informs in good faith the judicial or administrative authorities of an act rendering its perpetrator legally liable". The protection attaches to a good-faith report made to the authorities, not to publication. A police report, a complaint to the Public Prosecution or a complaint to the administrative authority concerned is protected in a way that a public post is not.

Article 429 protects what is "included in oral or written defence of the litigants, within the limits of the right of defence, before courts or investigating authorities". It covers what you say in your own defence in proceedings, within those limits. It does not extend to repeating the same allegations outside the proceedings.

An allegation of that kind in a review has led to a criminal conviction and a compensation order. As reported by Gulf Today in October 2024, the Al Ain Court of First Instance ordered a man to pay a company AED 20,000 in compensation, below the AED 60,000 claimed, over a comment on a Google website accusing it of forgery and of deceiving customers. He had first been convicted in a criminal case. The report is news, not precedent.

A review that describes your own experience in factual terms, without insult and without attributing to the business an incident that would expose it to punishment or contempt, is a different thing from one that accuses a business of fraud. The line is not always easy to draw, and the guide to negative Google reviews and UAE law covers it for both the reviewer and the business. Where you hold evidence of wrongdoing by a business, Article 430 points to the safer route: a good-faith report to the authority concerned.

Work through these steps:

Five questions to ask first:

Article 246 of Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, in force since 1 June 2026, says every act causing harm to another obliges its perpetrator to compensate, and Article 254(1) treats an infringement on another's reputation as moral harm. The criminal and civil routes are separate: under Article 245(2), a criminal penalty has no effect on the scope of civil liability or the amount of compensation. The guide to defamation compensation in the UAE covers claims and reported awards.

That means the dated, hashed evidence record, privacy and harassment reports to the platforms, Google's personal-information and legal-removal routes, and monitoring for reposts. A platform decides under its own policies, and the police, the prosecution or a court decides the legal case. See online reputation management in the UAE for how the work is organised. For Indians in the UAE, whose problem is often an Indian news portal or a forwarded message, see reputation management for Indians in the UAE.