Grand jury blocks prosecution of opposition lawmakers over military video

A grand jury in the capital reportedly rejected an attempt by justice officials to indict a group of opposition lawmakers who had encouraged military personnel to ignore what they termed “illegal” orders in a video circulated online, according to sources familiar with the proceedings.

The Justice Department had opened an investigation into the video featuring six opposition legislators calling on troops and intelligence community members to defy unlawful orders from the federal government. All six lawmakers allegedly have backgrounds in military or intelligence services.

The legislators involved were reportedly senior and junior lawmakers from various regions, including representatives from the industrial heartland, the western region, the eastern seaboard, and interior states.

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against [citizens],” the lawmakers said in the video, according to reports. “Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats coming to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”

Grand jurors declined to approve charges against the lawmakers, sources indicated. It remained unclear whether prosecutors had pursued indictments against all six legislators or what specific charges they had attempted to bring, observers noted.

Prosecutors could reportedly still attempt to secure future indictments against the opposition members.

The head of state had previously accused the lawmakers of being “traitors” who engaged in “sedition at the highest level” and “should be in jail,” according to public statements. The leader even reportedly suggested they should be executed over the video, though he later appeared to moderate that position.

One of the targeted lawmakers, who previously worked at intelligence and defense agencies, allegedly received a bomb threat just days after the video’s release and the leader’s subsequent inflammatory statements.

“Tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” one of the legislators said in a statement, according to reports. “But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country.”

Another lawmaker, described as a former military pilot, called the prosecution attempt an “outrageous abuse of power,” sources indicated.

“The leader wants every citizen to be too scared to speak out against him,” the lawmaker reportedly said on social media. “The most patriotic thing any of us can do is not back down.”

In a separate development, the defense establishment launched an investigation into one of the lawmakers, pointing to federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty for possible court-martial or other punishment.

The defense chief has reportedly censured the former military officer and is attempting to retroactively demote him from his retired rank over his participation in the video, which observers note affirms that refusing unlawful orders is standard military protocol.

“As a retired [officer] who is still receiving a military pension, [the lawmaker] knows he is still accountable to military justice,” the defense chief wrote in a social media post, according to reports.

The targeted lawmaker responded by filing suit to block those proceedings, which he characterized as an unconstitutional act of retribution.

During a recent hearing, a judge appeared skeptical of key arguments that a government attorney made in defense of the defense chief’s move to censure the opposition senator, legal observers noted.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between the ruling administration and opposition lawmakers over the limits of executive power and military authority, analysts suggest. Such disputes are not uncommon in nations experiencing political polarization, though the involvement of military justice mechanisms in what critics call political retaliation has drawn particular scrutiny from legal experts.