In one of the most unusual cases witnessed by the Sale court, a woman found herself caught between domestic violence on one hand and the loopholes of judicial procedures on the other. The wife presented the court with a video documenting the terror she experienced with her children, where her husband— a colonel under military law linked to civil protection—was seen destroying furniture and wrecking their home in the presence of the children. However, the court refused to classify it as direct violence, arguing that the video did not show a physical act of hitting the wife.
The biggest surprise occurred inside the courtroom, where the husband appeared before the judge. When asked about the reason for the dispute, he replied that his wife had left their home. The judge responded that this was a normal situation. As the questioning continued, the colonel made a shocking statement in front of everyone: “When women start to rule in the judiciary, there’s nothing more to say.” This remark was not merely a slip of the tongue; it was a blatant announcement of a condescending mindset that undervalues women and disrespects judicial authority. The judge did not hesitate to summon the judicial police. The colonel presented his professional ID in an attempt to showcase his influence, but the Public Prosecutor at the Sale court immediately ordered his detention.
Thus, the officer spent his first night in a cold cell, surrounded by security officials who had been his colleagues just the day before. He faced testimonies from observers in the courtroom, including judicial officials, a court clerk, and litigants. Nevertheless, after 48 hours in police custody, he was released after being assessed as having “mental issues.”
The case reveals multiple levels of dysfunction:
First: The problem of evidence in domestic violence cases, where the law remains incapable of protecting the wife and children unless the violence presents itself in the form of direct physical abuse, ignoring the psychological violence and intimidation that may be more harmful.
Second: The clash of masculine mentality with the principles of justice.
Third: The true test of judicial independence, especially for female judges in confronting conservative mentalities that consider women unqualified to pass judgments.
In the end, the colonel may emerge from the case citing “psychological disturbances,” but the deeper wound remains that which is left in the hearts of abused women when they witness the law faltering in recognizing their most basic rights to protection and dignity.
