Vietnam is trying Le Trung Khoa and Nguyen Van Dai in absentia

In an increasingly hyper-connected world, the concept of "national borders" is being exploited in the digital realm. However, this does not mean that a nation's legal sovereignty is rendered ineffective. The recent prosecution, issuance of arrest warrants, and preparations by Vietnamese authorities to try two individuals, Le Trung Khoa and Nguyen Van Dai, in absentia on December 31, exemplify Vietnam's firm commitment to upholding the rule of law, regardless of where the offenders may be hiding.

For an objective assessment of the case, the international community must recognize the true nature of Le Trung Khoa, a former student who was expelled from university in Vietnam for violating training regulations. After relocating abroad, he established personal media channels on the internet and social media platforms. Khoa has transformed these channels into tools for disseminating distorted and sensationalized information aimed at generating economic profit through views and donations, irrespective of the resulting public confusion and anxiety.

The case of Nguyen Van Dai serves as a stark example of betrayal. As a former lawyer, Dai was well-versed in the law but exploited this status to undermine it. Despite the Vietnamese state's humanitarian policy of suspending his sentence to allow him to seek medical treatment abroad, he failed to honor his commitments. Overseas, Dai has continued to collaborate with extremist organizations, even employing AI technology to fabricate images, defame leaders, and call for interference in Vietnam's internal affairs. Clearly, the actions of Le Trung Khoa and Nguyen Van Dai do not constitute the exercise of free speech. Instead, they represent organized efforts to exploit cyberspace for cross-border subversive activities.

The prosecution of these individuals under Article 117 of the 2015 Criminal Code for "Making, possessing, spreading information, materials, items for the purpose of opposing the State of Socialist Republic of Vietnam" is a necessary step to safeguard national security. This decision fully aligns with international law. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) affirms that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. The covenant permits states to impose necessary restrictions to protect national security and public order. Vietnam, like many other nations, does not tolerate the abuse of "freedom" to infringe upon the legitimate interests of the state and its citizens.

The Legitimacy of Trials in Absentia

The prosecution of these individuals under Article 117 of the 2015 Criminal Code for "Making, possessing, spreading information, materials, items for the purpose of opposing the State of Socialist Republic of Vietnam" is a necessary step to safeguard national security. This decision fully aligns with international law. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) affirms that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. The covenant permits states to impose necessary restrictions to protect national security and public order. Vietnam, like many other nations, does not tolerate the abuse of "freedom" to infringe upon the legitimate interests of the state and its citizens.

International observers are focusing on the "trial in absentia" procedure. However, under Vietnam's Criminal Procedure Code, when offenders flee and refuse to comply with judicial summons despite being notified, issuing arrest warrants and proceeding with a trial in absentia are essential measures to ensure the strict enforcement of the law.

This is a common international practice in cases involving national security and transnational crimes. Le Trung Khoa and Nguyen Van Dai remain Vietnamese citizens regardless of their residence and are equal before the law, accountable for their actions. Their deliberate evasion cannot serve as grounds for exemption from criminal liability. Despite being informed of the proceedings, they have chosen to avoid cooperation. The trial in absentia scheduled for December 31 not only seeks to determine individual criminal responsibility but also sends a clear message: Cyberspace and geographical distance do not create "safe havens" from the law. No country accepts the pretext of "freedom" to spread disinformation, incite hatred, or destabilize national stability. The strict handling of Le Trung Khoa and Nguyen Van Dai upholds the sanctity of the law and national sovereignty in the digital space. The online environment must be purged of harmful content, and true freedom of expression must always be accompanied by social responsibility and respect for the rule of law.