An Expert Witness Guide to Justice Systems: Saudi Arabia 

By Noah Bolmer 

In this series, we explore international justice systems, through the lens of an expert witness. Saudi Arabia’s approach to expert witnesses is shaped by its Sharia-based legal architecture: centralized, inquisitorial, and tightly regulated. Experts are appointed by the court to assist the judge, not the parties, and their findings are typically submitted in writing with minimal courtroom presence. The process is formal and restrained, with little emphasis on adversarial posturing. Cross-examination is rare, party-appointed experts are uncommon, and strategic framing plays a limited role. Instead, the expert’s function is to clarify technical issues within a framework of judicial discretion and religious norms. 

Judicial Structure 

Saudi Arabia’s legal system is grounded in Islamic law (Sharia), primarily following the Hanbali school of jurisprudence (madhhab) which emphasizes strict textual interpretation and minimal reliance on judicial discretion or custom. Judges play a central role in the evidentiary process, directing the scope of inquiry, selecting technical advisors, and determining the relevance of specialized knowledge. Proceedings are inquisitorial, with judges actively investigating facts and exercising broad discretion over how evidence is gathered and weighed. 

The system is organized into several judicial branches: 

• General Courts handle civil and criminal matters under Sharia principles. 

• Summary Courts address minor offenses and procedural issues. 

• Administrative Courts resolve disputes involving government entities and public law. 

• Specialized Tribunals exist for labor, commercial, and personal status cases. 

These specialized tribunals exist primarily for areas where Sharia offers limited guidance; filling gaps in areas where classical Islamic jurisprudence lacks detailed provisions, such as corporate law, capital markets, and foreign investment. They hold primary subject matter jurisdiction over their specialized areas, and procedural screenings ensure that matters are directed to the proper court for adjudication. 

Judges (qadis) are trained through religious institutions and appointed by the Supreme Judicial Council. Their responsibilities extend beyond legal interpretation to include moral reasoning, procedural oversight, and fact development. This structure informs the treatment of expert witnesses, who are engaged to assist the court—not the parties—in resolving technical questions. While fact witnesses are subject to direct, oral examination by the judge and limited cross-examination by the parties, expert findings are typically submitted in writing, with rare oral testimony only when the judge requests clarification. 

Attorneys in Saudi Arabia (muhamīn), must hold a law degree from a recognized institution and complete a period of supervised legal training before registering with the Saudi Ministry of Justice. Their role in litigation is primarily advisory and procedural—they prepare filings, guide clients through legal processes, and respond to court-appointed expert findings. Unlike in adversarial systems, they do not direct witness examination or control the presentation of technical evidence. Instead, they operate within a framework defined by judicial discretion, supporting the court’s inquiry rather than shaping it. 

Expert Witnesses and the 2021 Law of Evidence 

Saudi Arabia’s use of expert witnesses has long been shaped by judicial discretion and religious norms. Historically, judges consulted technical specialists informally, especially in cases involving medicine, engineering, or accounting. There was no centralized registry or formal licensing system. Instead, courts drew from government agencies or professional communities as needed, relying on the judge’s authority to determine relevance and scope. 

This began to shift with the enactment of the Law of Evidence in December of 2021, as part of a broader legal reform initiative aimed at increasing transparency and predictability across the Saudi judiciary. The law introduced formal provisions for expert involvement, codifying their role within a structured evidentiary framework. Under the 2021 law, expert reports are recognized as valid forms of evidence, provided they meet certain criteria: 

• The expert must be appointed by the court or approved by the judge; 

• Their findings must be submitted in writing, with clear methodology and supporting  documentation; and 

• The report must address only the technical questions posed by the court, avoiding legal conclusions or advocacy. 

Judges retain discretion to determine whether expert input is necessary and may request clarification or supplemental analysis if the initial report is incomplete. Oral testimony is permitted but uncommon, and typically reserved for cases where the judge requires direct explanation. The law also outlines procedural safeguards for evaluating expert input, including: 

• Disclosure requirements for reliance materials and assumptions; 

• Timelines for submission and review; and 

• Compensation protocols, with fees regulated by the Ministry of Justice and paid through judicial channels. 

This codification marks a significant departure from prior practice, aligning Saudi Arabia more closely with civil law jurisdictions that emphasize judicial control over expert evidence. While the system remains court-centered and document-driven, the 2021 law provides clearer expectations for experts and attorneys alike, reducing ambiguity and reinforcing the expert’s role as a neutral technical advisor. 

Court-Appointed Experts 

When a judge determines that a case involves technical or specialized issues beyond their own expertise, they may appoint an expert to provide focused analysis. This is common in disputes involving engineering defects, medical evaluations, financial audits, or forensic evidence. Experts are selected from government-approved rosters or recognized professional bodies. The Ministry of Justice maintains lists of qualified individuals across various disciplines, and judges rely on these registries—along with institutional reputation and prior case experience—to identify suitable candidates. The appointment is governed by procedural rules that define the expert’s mandate, limit their scope to factual clarification, and prohibit legal interpretation. Once appointed, the expert operates independently, but within the boundaries set by the court. Their work may involve activities such as site inspections, technical measurements, document analysis, or consultations with relevant stakeholders, depending on the nature of the case. Findings are submitted in writing and incorporated into the case record. 

Under the 2021 Law of Evidence, the court may summon the expert for oral clarification if the written report is incomplete or contested. While adversarial cross-examination is not standard practice, parties may be permitted to pose questions under judicial supervision—particularly in complex or high-stakes matters. The judge retains full control over the format and scope of any oral proceedings, ensuring that expert input remains focused and impartial. 

Attorneys may respond to the expert’s report or request elaboration, but they do not direct the expert’s inquiry. The court manages both the engagement and presentation of technical evidence, reinforcing the expert’s role as a neutral advisor serving the judge’s understanding rather than the parties’ positions. 

Privately Commissioned Experts 

While Saudi parties may submit requests to engage experts of their own, these are treated as supplementary and subject to judicial approval. The court retains full discretion over whether to admit party-commissioned reports, and their evidentiary weight depends on relevance, clarity, and alignment with procedural norms. Unlike court-appointed experts, privately retained experts do not operate under a judicial mandate and may be viewed with skepticism. 

If a party disagrees with the conclusions of a court-appointed expert, they may request permission to submit a counter-report. This functions similarly to a rebuttal report in adversarial systems, but its impact is contingent on whether the judge finds it credible and necessary. Judges may consider alternative analyses—particularly if they identify methodological flaws or introduce overlooked data—but they are not required to engage with them in depth. The court’s own inquiry remains primary, and any external input is filtered through that lens. 

This dynamic reflects the broader structure of Saudi litigation, where technical evidence is managed by the court and advocacy is channeled through legal filings and procedural argument rather than evidentiary contest. Party-appointed experts may assist in shaping legal strategy or highlighting gaps but their role is reactive and constrained, reinforcing the system’s emphasis on judicial control and procedural discipline. 

Scope Definition and Oversight 

When a Saudi court appoints an expert, it issues a directive that defines the technical questions to be addressed and outlines the boundaries of the inquiry. The expert is expected to investigate independently, using methods appropriate to the subject matter while remaining focused on the specific issues identified by the judge. The court may revise or expand the scope if new questions arise during proceedings, but the expert’s mandate remains tightly controlled. 

An expert report is submitted and becomes part of the official case record. It is shared with both parties, who may respond or request clarification. Under the 2021 Law of Evidence, the court may summon the expert for oral explanation if the report is incomplete or contested. While parties may pose questions under judicial supervision, direct or informal contact between the expert and the parties is discouraged. The expert is not expected to meet privately with either side or engage in correspondence outside the court’s oversight. 

This structure preserves procedural neutrality and ensures that the expert’s findings are presented in a controlled and transparent manner. By defining the inquiry and managing its presentation, the court maintains oversight without interfering in the substance of the expert’s analysis. The process is designed to clarify technical issues within a judicial framework, supporting the judge’s fact-finding responsibilities while minimizing the risk of advocacy or procedural ambiguity. 

Payment and Cost Allocation 

Expert compensation is governed by judicial procedure and Ministry of Justice guidelines. The court determines the fee based on the complexity of the inquiry, the time required, and the nature of the expertise. One or both parties may be ordered to advance the cost, depending on who initiated the expert’s involvement or how the issue emerged during proceedings. These payments are treated as litigation expenses and may be subject to reimbursement depending on the case outcome. 

Experts do not negotiate terms with the parties. All financial arrangements are managed through the court, which ensures that compensation remains proportionate, regulated, and free from partisan influence. While there is no universal fee schedule, rates are informed by the expert’s discipline, credentials, and the demands of the case. This structure reinforces the expert’s role as a neutral technical advisor and prevents financial leverage from shaping the scope or tone of the analysis. 

Structural Contrast with the U.S. Model 

The Saudi and American systems both recognize the importance of expert neutrality, but they enforce it through fundamentally different mechanisms. In the United States, experts are typically retained by one of the parties and presented as part of that party’s case. While they are legally obligated to provide objective opinions, their testimony is often shaped by strategic framing and subjected to adversarial scrutiny. Cross-examination is central to the process, and the court relies on opposing counsel to challenge the expert’s credibility, methodology, or conclusions. 

Like Japan, in Saudi Arabia, experts are appointed by the court and serve as technical resources for the judiciary. Their findings are submitted in writing and reviewed by the judge, not presented as partisan evidence. Oral clarification may be requested, and parties may pose questions under judicial supervision, but adversarial cross-examination is not the norm. Party-appointed experts—though permitted—are rarely central to the court’s analysis and must be approved before their input is considered. The structure is designed to preserve procedural discipline and minimize contest. The court defines the inquiry, manages the presentation, and evaluates the findings without relying on party-driven critique. 

Sidebar: Features of the Saudi System 

 Bench Trials Only All trials in Saudi Arabia are conducted by judges—there are no juries or lay panels. This reinforces the system’s inquisitorial nature and limits adversarial engagement. 

• Uncodified Sharia Foundations Despite recent codification efforts, much of Saudi law remains rooted in uncodified Sharia. Judges interpret religious texts and scholarly consensus (ijmaʿ) to resolve disputes, which can lead to variability in rulings and scope of inquiry. 

• Royal Pardon as Final Appeal The King of Saudi Arabia serves as the final court of appeal, and may issue pardons or commute sentences. This executive role is unique in its integration with the judicial hierarchy and reflects the fusion of religious, legal, and political authority. 

• Expert Protection Program Saudi Arabia has introduced a formal protection framework for witnesses, experts, and victims by offering confidentiality, secure transport, and legal safeguards in sensitive cases. This is uncommon among global systems and reflects growing attention to procedural integrity. 

• Limited Precedent and Case Law Judicial decisions are not binding in future cases. While recent reforms have introduced a sourcebook of legal principles, precedent remains advisory rather than mandatory, giving judges wide latitude in interpreting both law and expert input. 

Conclusion 

 The Saudi approach to expert evidence reflects a commitment to judicial discretion and procedural discipline. Expertise is engaged as a technical resource for the court. The limited role of party-appointed experts, emphasis on written reports, and tightly managed oral clarification all point to a system that channels expert input through judicial oversight rather than adversarial contest. Within this framework, the expert serves the judge’s inquiry—not the parties’ strategy—reinforcing the system’s focus on neutrality, clarity, and religiously grounded adjudication. 

For over 30 years, Round Table Group has been connecting litigators with skilled and qualified expert witnesses. If you are interested in being considered for expert witness opportunities, contact us at 202-908-4500 for more information or sign up now!