“I did what I did to exercise two fundamental rights: freedom of speech and freedom of expression:” Nguyen Chi Tuyen’s closing words at trial

On August 15, a Hanoi court sentenced Nguyen Chi Tuyen, also known as Anh Chi, to five years in prison for “making, storing or distributing information, documents and items aimed against the state of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam” (Article 117). Only his wife and lawyers were allowed in the courtroom.

Nguyen Chi Tuyen was arrested on Feb., 29, 2024, and held incommunicado for months prior to trial. Tuyen is one of the most well known Vietnamese human rights bloggers, amassing nearly 100,000 followers on his YouTube channel “Anh Chí Râu Đen.” Of Tuyen’s impact, Bennett Murray, former bureau chief for DPA (the German press agency) in Hanoi,said: “I think he spoke to people on a very individual level, not just sort of trading stories and ideas with fellow travelers, but actually reaching out to people on social media and really talking to the people who …. people who have a need to hear sort of alternative takes on the way things are in Vietnam and of the Communist Party.” Read more in Who is Anh Chi?

Tuyen maintained his innocence, and before the trial’s conclusion, gave final remarks that we obtained from lawyer Nguyen Ha Luan and have translated below.

“Members of the Court, representatives of the Procuracy, my attorneys, and everyone who’s pesent at my trial on this day:

Every human being, after they’re born and grown into an adult, has a need to interact and share information about the reality of their society. Regarding the video clips that led to these indictments against me, they are just an exercise of my rights according to Article 25 of the Constitution, and other rights based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – those are the rights to freedom of thoughts, of self expression, and of speech. YouTube is merely a means by which I communicate my personal opinions.

Regarding the charges in this trial, I absolutely do not agree with the accusation of “distributing and spreading fake information, causing confusion for the people.” That’s because all the information I discussed and talked about is real and came from official sources, not something I fabricated, which could be construed as lies.

Regarding my view that the country needs more than one political party or an opposition party, you cannot conclude therefrom that it’s an argument for a psy-op war. In the history of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, now called the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, beginning on September 2, 1945, the Communist Party actually worked alongside other political parties. It was a period of multiple parties and of many impressive achievements for the nation. Therefore, having many parties only made the country stronger, made the Communist Party better, and did not impact the survival of the regime.

Moreover, the view that our country needs multiple political parties or an opposition party does not go against Article 4 of the Constitution – that Article only stipulates that the Commumist Party shall be the leading force, but not the only force.

My views are expressed with the purpose of contributing to the anti-corruption drive; they neither affect the right of the Communist Party to lead nor negatively impact the well being of our country.

The Procuracy’s representatives maintain the view that my activities constitute acts against the government. I want to stress that such thinking is simply subjective imposition. The charges detailed in the Procuracy’s final report claim that my intention is to oppose the state. I disagree. And because they could neither produce evidence nor describe their methodology, I am not convinced.

I see that Vietnam is integrating more each day with the world in economic, political, and social spheres; she is in fact an official signatory of several international human rights covenants. Our leadership at all levels likes to talk about how “the people know, the people say,” yet at this trial, I am accused of saying things that go against the state, that negatively affect the country’s survival, and am recommended for five to six years in prison — which is too extreme.

Is this right? Is this appropriate?

I’m prepared to be held accountable for my actions, but I want to state for the record that I had no intention to oppose or destroy anything. I did what I did to exercise two fundamental rights: freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

I thank the Court, the Procuracy, my lawyers, and everyone who listened to my closing statement.

I want to thank my wife, who has walked with me throughout this journey and who is with me in this courtroom today. I want to thank my friends and all the organizations in Vietnam, as well as in the world, that are concerned about my activities all these years.”