Artificial Intelligence in Saudi Courts

Fahad S. Alieyari talks about how Saudi Arabia’s courts are integrating artificial intelligence by balancing innovation with strict ethical and legal safeguards to enhance efficiency.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping judicial systems around the world, and Saudi Arabia stands among the leading jurisdictions embracing this transformation within a well-defined ethical and regulatory framework. Over the past decade, the Kingdom has implemented a wide-ranging digital transformation strategy under Vision 2030, resulting in substantial modernisation across the justice sector. According to official Ministry of Justice statistics, more than 150 digital judicial services have been launched, over 80 per cent of cases are now processed electronically, and judicial platforms such as Najiz have carried out more than 100 million digital transactions in a relatively short period. These figures demonstrate not only technological progress but also the readiness of the justice system to incorporate advanced tools such as AI while preserving the foundations of fairness and judicial integrity.

Saudi Arabia’s approach to integrating AI into the court system has been deliberate rather than abrupt. It focuses on enabling AI to support procedural efficiency and administrative accuracy, while ensuring that judicial reasoning, assessment of evidence, and issuance of rulings remain strictly within human judicial discretion. This dual commitment—to innovation and to safeguarding judicial objectivity—is reinforced both by ethical principles issued at the national level and by explicit legal provisions regulating the permissible scope of AI within the judiciary.

SDAIA’S ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

To ensure responsible and trusted AI deployment, the Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA) has introduced a comprehensive framework of ethical principles. These principles play a critical role in shaping how AI may be used in public-sector systems, including courts. Key elements include:

1. Fairness and non-bias
   AI systems must be designed to avoid algorithmic bias and to ensure that training data represents diverse communities. This protects against outputs that could disadvantage individuals or groups.
2. Transparency and explainability
   Judicial and governmental entities must be able to understand, review, and—when necessary—explain how an AI system reached a particular conclusion.
3. Privacy and data protection
   Given the sensitivity of judicial records and litigants’ data, AI systems must comply with strict safeguards to prevent unauthorised access or misuse.
4. Accountability
   Human oversight is mandatory. Responsibility for decisions made with AI assistance must remain with identifiable officials, ensuring the tools do not become autonomous decision-makers.
5. Cybersecurity
   AI models must be protected against manipulation, tampering, and cyberattacks.
6. Human-centricity
   Most importantly, AI must enhance—not replace—human judgment. Judicial independence and discretion remain paramount.

Together, these principles form the ethical bedrock guiding AI’s use in Saudi courts, ensuring that innovation never compromises fairness or due process.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK GOVERNING AI USE IN SAUDI COURTS

Beyond ethical concepts, Saudi Arabia has enacted a series of concrete legal provisions that delineate how AI may be used within courts, emphasising its procedural role while prohibiting any intrusion into the substantive judicial function.

1. Article 24 of the Implementing Regulations of the Commercial Courts Law

The article states:

“It is permissible to benefit from AI technologies in electronic procedures, and any procedure whose purpose is achieved by such technologies may be dispensed with.”

This text makes two points clear:

• AI may be used only in procedures, such as document processing, notifications, or scheduling.
• AI may not be used for the evaluative or substantive components of adjudication.

The regulation thus embraces AI as a tool for efficiency while preserving judicial reasoning as exclusively human.

2. Article 23 of the Procedural Guide of the Evidence Law

This article provides:

“Modern technologies, including AI, may be used in evidentiary procedures, and any procedure whose purpose is fulfilled through such technologies may be dispensed with.”

Here, the legislator explicitly acknowledges:

• The validity of AI-assisted evidentiary processes, such as automated document verification, data authentication, or digital pattern analysis.
• The possibility that AI-generated outputs may serve as auxiliary means of proof, provided the court remains the ultimate assessor of evidentiary weight.

This represents a significant step toward integrating electronic and intelligent evidence into judicial proceedings.

3. Article 16 of the Regulation for Enforcement Service Providers

The article states:

“The Ministry of Justice’s Enforcement Authority may use AI to perform enforcement services.”

This provision opens the door to important applications of AI in execution procedures, including:

• Analysing financial data to identify assets,
• Optimising enforcement workflows,
• Anticipating delays or obstacles in execution processes.

The role of AI here is operational and managerial, reinforcing the efficiency of enforcement without influencing legal determinations.

UNIFIED LEGISLATIVE MESSAGE: AI AS A PROCEDURAL ASSISTANT, NOT A JUDICIAL ARBITER

Taken together, these three articles reveal a clear and consistent message within the Saudi legal framework:

AI may support judicial procedures—but it may not replace or influence the substantive reasoning or decision-making authority of judges.

This preserves the human role in assessing credibility, understanding context, balancing interests, and applying legal and moral judgment—elements no algorithm can replicate.

FUTURE POSSIBILITIES: AI AND DIGITAL EVIDENCE IN THE SAUDI JUDICIAL SYSTEM

As digital transformation deepens, the potential uses of AI in Saudi courts will expand, especially within electronic evidence procedures. Several promising areas include:

1. Analysis of Large-Scale Digital Evidence

Courts increasingly deal with extensive datasets such as emails, transaction logs, or digital communications. AI could significantly reduce the time required to review such evidence by identifying relevant patterns, anomalies, or correlations.

2. Support for Forensic Expertise

AI may assist human experts by:

• Estimating market values in commercial disputes,
• Detecting document forgery,
• Conducting preliminary technical assessments before an expert’s formal evaluation.

3. Judicial Access to Specialised Knowledge

Judges often face questions requiring familiarity with:

• Foreign commercial customs,
• Market norms,
• Cultural practices,
• Historical or statistical information.

AI could provide reliable data-driven summaries.
For example:

• When determining customs in a foreign jurisdiction, AI could analyse legal sources and market data.
• When assessing the fair market value of a disputed asset, AI could compile pricing data across platforms and time periods.

Such tools expand judicial informational capacity without undermining judicial discretion.

4. Predictive Case Management

Though not used for deciding outcomes, AI could forecast:

• Likely procedural delays,
• Caseload distribution patterns,
• Optimal scheduling.

This enhances judicial administration rather than judicial judgment.

5. Preventive Justice and Fraud Detection

AI can identify repetitive patterns of fraud, suspicious commercial behavior, or hidden links between parties—contributing to smarter, more preventive justice.

Across all these scenarios, strict safeguards remain essential to prevent bias, ensure transparency, and maintain the primacy of the human judge.

CONCLUSION

Saudi Arabia’s integration of AI into its judicial system reflects a balanced vision that embraces technological innovation while safeguarding judicial ethics and independence. Supported by clear ethical principles from SDAIA and reinforced by well-crafted legal provisions, the Kingdom ensures that AI functions only as a procedural and administrative assistant, never as a substitute for judicial reasoning.

As digital evidence expands and legal processes become increasingly data-driven, AI will likely play a growing role in supporting experts, improving evidentiary efficiency, and enabling judges to access specialised knowledge with unprecedented ease. Yet the core principle remains unchanged: AI must serve justice, not shape it.

With this thoughtful and controlled approach, Saudi Arabia positions itself at the forefront of modern judicial transformation—innovative, ethical, and firmly anchored in the enduring values of fairness and due process.

Text by:

Fahad S. Alieyari, lawyer, Saudi Arabia