When the Saudi crown prince locked nearly 400 of his country’s most powerful people in a luxury hotel in 2017 and stripped them of their fortunes, a UK law firm allegedly played a significant role.
On the orders of Mohammed bin Salman, Clifford Chance – a “magic circle” legal giant with headquarters in London – was reported to have facilitated the forced transfer of assets from a Saudi TV station to the government.
In total, assets worth $100bn were taken from the detainees, who included political rivals of Prince Mohammed. Some were allegedly beaten, deprived of sleep and held in stress positions.
Seven years on from the infamous purge at the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh, Clifford Chance – whose global revenues rose 9% to £2.3bn in the last financial year – has expanded in Saudi Arabia to become an “unrivalled legal powerhouse”, according to its website.
It boasts large government clients, including key ministries and the sovereign public investment fund. In 2023, after a legal change, its Saudi arm, AS&H Clifford Chance – a joint venture with a local firm – became one of the first foreign firms approved to practise law.
Only last month, it was named Saudi law firm of the year at a glitzy awards ceremony in Dubai.
Now the firm’s long-running links to the Saudi regime are facing scrutiny after it was commissioned to produce an “independent” assessment of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record as part of the country’s bid to host the 2034 Fifa World Cup – a report that has been roundly condemned as a “whitewash”.
The Observer understands that at least one other law firm approached to conduct the assessment refused because of reputational concerns and fears over conflicts of interest.
But the Saudi arm of Clifford Chance – whose recent work also includes overseeing a multibillion-pound football stadium deal for two clubs in the Saudi Pro League – agreed. The appointment is understood to have been signed off by Fifa, world football’s governing body.
Required as part of Fifa’s bidding process, the assessment was supposed to give an independent and unbiased picture of the human rights context in the kingdom. UN guiding principles, which Fifa says it abides by, say such assessments should “include all internationally recognised human rights as a reference point”.
But documents seen by the Observer show that AS&H Clifford Chance agreed to severely limit the scope of its report after a request from the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (Saff), which again was approved by Fifa.
The restrictions mean the report only looked at human rights that are recognised in Saudi Arabia – rather than those recognised globally – and were considered relevant by the Saudi football federation.
Across 39 pages, there is no mention of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in Saudi Arabia, the criminalisation of same-sex sexual activity, controls on freedom of expression and the prohibition of trade unions or forced evictions, such as during construction of the mega-city Neom. In the methodology notes for the report, AS&H Clifford Chance says the scope was “determined by Saff in agreement with Fifa”. The notes also reveal the review was completed after only six weeks of desk work and relied solely on interviews with government ministries. Human rights groups and those affected by alleged abuses, such as migrant workers, were not consulted.
Last week, a coalition of 11 human rights organisations attacked the report as “fatally flawed”, claiming it dramatically downplayed the “severe risk” of hosting the World Cup in Saudi Arabia. Julia Legner, executive director of ALQST for Human Rights, a Saudi Arabian diaspora organisation, said it gave an “artificially limited, misleading and overly positive perspective”, while James Lynch of FairSquare, a nonprofit advocacy group, called it a “whitewash”.
Lynch said it was “unthinkably bad” and “genuinely bizarre” that Clifford Chance – renowned for its human rights practice in the UK – would disregard international standards to agree to parameters set by the Saudi football federation. Its failure to consult external stakeholders was “completely wild”, he added.
“It’s such a departure from standard practice,” he said. “They might say: ‘Look, we didn’t have enough time.’ But that’s not OK. Either don’t take it, or don’t call it an independent human rights assessment – because it’s not.”
The firm is also accused of cherrypicking comments from UN bodies, leaving out the most damning findings, such as those about women and girls facing criminal proceedings if they press charges in sexual abuse cases. No reports by UN special rapporteurs are included and there is no mention of the murder of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi, nor the Ritz-Carlton purge.
Steve Cockburn, head of labour rights and sport at Amnesty International, said: “It is incredible that AS&H Clifford Chance omitted such glaring risks from its assessment and scandalous that Fifa paved the way for them to do so.”
The controversy over the report, which was first published by Fifa in July but received little attention, has caused turmoil at Clifford Chance’s Canary Wharf HQ.
after newsletter promotion
The firm is known for its pro bono and human rights work, and one of its partners co-chairs the Business and Human Rights Lawyers Association. But according to people familiar with the assessment, key staff with relevant expertise were not consulted. “It’s created an internal shitstorm,” a source said.
Another said: “It’s a shoddy piece of work. It would have been a mistake for anyone credible to take on this task given the parameters were scoped so narrowly. Given the conditions attached, there was no way to do it in an ethical way.”
The revelations also risk undermining the firm’s pledge to champion LGBTQ rights. In 2023, Clifford Chance was ranked as one of the world’s best LGBT employers in Stonewall’s global workplace equality index, which recognises organisations that have “taken steps to advance LGBT equality across their global locations”.
A quote from the global head of inclusion, showcased on the site, says: “It is not enough to have values, we must be champions for them and be willing to campaign for them if they are to be real.”Saudi Arabia has a long record of persecuting LGBT people. While the head of its World Cup unit pledged in September that people coming for the tournament “will be respected” regardless of sexuality or gender identity, sex outside marriage – including same-sex relations – is criminalised. Punishments can include death and LGBT people “practise extreme self-censorship to survive their daily lives”, according to Human Right Watch. The issue is not mentioned in the World Cup report.
The fallout also raises wider questions for Fifa about the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s World Cup bid as a vote to confirm the kingdom as 2034 host approaches.
The bid attracted controversy from the start after the Fifa council, led by the organisation’s president, Gianni Infantino, took steps widely seen as helping to pave the way for Saudi Arabia to succeed, including deciding to host the 2030 tournament over three continents – restricting the hosting eligibility for 2034 to Asia or Oceania. There was also a sped-up process that gave countries only 25 days to express their intent.
After Saudi Arabia emerged as sole bidder, the Norwegian Football Federation attacked the process as “not transparent enough”. Fifa insists that it was fair.
Saudi Arabia’s designation as the host nation is expected to be ratified at a Fifa congress meeting on 11 December in Zurich, where the organisation’s 211 members will vote.
A spokesperson for Fifa said a “thorough bidding process” was under way and that it would not comment until that had concluded.
It declined to comment on the Clifford Chance report but said it planned to publish an evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s bid, including the human rights assessment, before the congress meeting.
Clifford Chance did not comment on the human rights assessment, its connections to the Saudi government or its alleged involvement in the transfer of assets in the Ritz-Carlton purge. In an email to advocacy groups last week, its global managing partner, Charles Adams, said it would be “inappropriate to comment … beyond the content contained in the published report”.
The Saudi government was contacted for comment. It has previously dismissed claims of torture during its “anti-corruption” purge at the Ritz-Carlton, saying they were “absolutely untrue”.