Yesterday, the State Security Court at the Federal Supreme Court decided to reserve the case known as the “Secret Organization” case, in which 94 citizens are accused of founding, establishing, and managing a secret organization aimed at undermining the regime and seizing power in the country until next July 2 for the verdict to be pronounced. The president of the court, Judge Counselor Falah Al-Hajri, announced the completion of hearing the oral arguments of the prosecution, the defendants, and the defense lawyers, after four lawyers presented their closing arguments in yesterday’s session.
The State Security Court at the Federal Supreme Court held its final hearing yesterday, headed by Counselor Falah Al-Hajri and in the presence of 73 defendants and 12 defendants.
|
Screenshots — The defense lawyers made a mistake in mentioning the name of an accused in several places, which forced the president of the court to stop them and ask them whether they knew his name or not. He corrected the name for them after verifying it in several places after asking the accused about his correct name. — Defense lawyer Jassim Al-Naqbi asked Judge Counselor Falah Al-Hajri before starting his plea on behalf of the defendants, jokingly, “Do you prefer me to start with the women before the men, or do you prefer the men before the women?” The judge replied, “They are all good. The important thing is that you pay attention to the time.” Al-Naqbi had no choice but to reply, “After him, the people, there is no one behind me.” — The president of the court stopped lawyer Jassim Al-Naqbi in his plea after he explained to the judge that the Khor Fakkan court belongs to the federal government. The judge said, “We do not know that the Khor Fakkan court belongs to the federal government. Specify, Your Honor.” Al-Naqbi apologized to the president of the court, indicating that the clarification in The context of his argument, not the judge’s. — Lawyer Jassim Al-Naqbi refrained from mentioning the year of his client’s birth, after mentioning the day and month. He said that he would stop at this point, and the president of the court responded jokingly, “These are red lines!” — Lawyer Hamdan Al-Zeyoudi asked the judge to complete his plea on behalf of the rest of his clients, and to remind the judge of the agreement that occurred between them during the 12th session. The judge’s response was, “There is no agreement!” However, he allocated a period of time for him to complete his plea. Submitting pleading notes to the court and the Public Prosecution. — The judge referred to lawyer Abdul Hamid Al-Kumaiti, after he spoke for half an hour in brief and presenting his notes, but the lawyer explained to the judge that he spoke about two points out of 19 points in his argument! |
Lawyers Jassim Al-Naqbi, Abdul Hamid Al-Kumaiti, Hamdan Al-Zeyoudi, and Ali Al-Haddad presented their defenses in the case and their responses to the accusations of the State Security Prosecution, and they challenged the integrity of the investigations and the process of collecting information about the accused. They also argued that the arrest procedures against them were invalid, and challenged the validity of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and the accuracy of the investigations, which they said the prosecution interfered in drafting, and the defense lawyers argued for the innocence of their clients.
Al-Naqbi, appointed by nine defendants, began his defense by saying that he was sending four messages to God Almighty, to the leadership of the state, to the security services, and to the media, affirming his conviction in the innocence of the accused and reiterating loyalty to the leadership… “out of love, not fear, and in recognition of efforts and achievements,” and demanded the end of strife and dialogue. “Because there are those who want to divide us,” citing the saying of General His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, said, “The house is united.”
Al-Naqbi argued that the arrest procedures for two of the defendants were invalid, due to conflicting reasons for arrest between violating residency procedures and laws and belonging to the organization. He said, “What is clear from the details of this case is that there was no measure to stop it, and then a state security case arose after an accident that occurred by chance.”
Al-Naqbi argued that the confessions of the four defendants, who were the first to be arrested, were invalid, due to the “material and moral coercion, promises, intimidation, and intimidation that occurred on them,” as he described it, refuting the prosecution’s statement that the defendants gave their statements of free and clear will.
The lawyer challenged the accuracy of the investigations and the validity of the information, which “may or may not be true,” citing a letter issued by the prosecution dated October 23, 2012, mentioning the last name of one of the accused as “Raqeeb,” and none of the detainees bore that name.
He added, flattering the prosecution, that this error was “the watchdog of the prosecution’s innate conscience.” The lawyer argued that there was no moral character for the crime, pointing out that “the prosecution argued that all the defendants were one person, and they all committed the same act, and the evidence taken in the union of wills was that they believed in the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood,” saying that “the accusation is based on an ideology and not an independent act that must be present.” To establish evidence. The invalidity of the evidence presented by the prosecution was demonstrated by the small number of members of the investigation team for the accused, according to the testimony of the first and second prosecution witnesses. He said: “Is it possible for a case of this size to be entrusted to only two officers?”
Al-Naqbi tried to justify what one of the defendants said during a private session about change, saying that he said it as an emotional reaction two days after the closure of the Islah Society, “as a means of venting oneself as a result of the restrictions, which does not carry with it the will to act,” as he said. Al-Naqbi then defended his nine clients individually, defending their innocence due to the weakness of the evidence against them, and the inaccuracy of the investigations and information pertaining to them in the case, such as the difference in names, and the omission of some of them leaving the Islah Society and ceasing to participate in its activities years ago, demanding that they be acquitted of the charges against them and that they be released. .
Al-Kumaiti, who is representing 86 defendants in the case, began with a remark he made to the court about one of his clients, saying that his client exercised his legal right as required by a decree issued by the late Sheikh Saqr bin Muhammad Al-Qasimi, the former ruler of Ras Al-Khaimah, which the lawyer obtained. Finally, it states that the accused has legitimacy and a legal role in publishing the Islah Society’s call and its meetings, indicating that the accusation of the crime charged against him is invalid, explaining that “a security apparatus The state kept the decree after arresting the executive director of the Reform Society, and I only discovered it two days ago,” he added, adding that this decree, if submitted to the court, might lead to his client being acquitted of all charges, demanding that all his clients be acquitted of the charges against them.
He stated that the order to extend the pretrial detention of his client, which was signed by Judge Shihab Al-Hammadi, was forged, as the information contained therein was changed to suit the investigations of the State Security Agency, adding that the forgery included 10 To Whom It May Concern certificates issued by the Public Prosecution, explaining that The plea to challenge the charges must be proven before the court for consideration.
He argued that the order to refer the accused to the Public Prosecution for investigation in the case, which was issued on the 27th of last January, was invalid, explaining that the lawyers did not see the names included in the referral even after a request from the court and the Public Prosecution, pointing out that the Prosecution did not inform the accused of the list of evidence. Which you set, or the date of the session.
He added that a number of local media outlets and social networking sites swayed public opinion and published about the case even before the court sessions began, which negatively affects the way public opinion accepts the case and the defendants, explaining that some of the information published on Internet pages was used as evidence against the defendants in the case. Demanding an end to spreading false information and trying to upset public opinion and influence it until the ruling is finalized.
Al-Kumaiti argued that the confession of the four defendants, whom the prosecution considered as witnesses in the case, was invalid. He said that the violations they were subjected to in pretrial detention violated the agreement signed by the UAE in 2012, explaining that any confession produced by the accused after the violations he was exposed to could not be taken into account. In the case.
He pointed out that the case file did not contain papers indicating that the defendants sent false information about the state abroad, but rather that the defendants did not violate the state’s laws regarding publishing and permissible criticism, pointing out that those familiar with this information tried to distort and change it so that those with these ideas would have a criminal mentality, explaining 68% of the electronic information in the records that was seized was hidden and tampered with. He argued before the court that the order issued by the Public Prosecutor to seize and freeze the defendants’ funds, and the unconstitutionality of Article (180), was unanimously agreed upon by the defense lawyers, because the charge with which the defendants are being tried is “broad and general.” He said, wondering: Are all the defendants in the case, regardless of their ages, participants? In establishing and managing the Reform Association?
Al-Kumaiti argued that the formation of the court panel was invalid, and the unconstitutionality of Article (134), which prohibits court members from responding in the case, and he argued that Article (253) of the Penal Code, which relates to false testimony, or denying or concealing part or all of the truth, is unconstitutional. He explained that the witness concealed part of the truth from the court and said during his pleading that the UAE government consists of a federal government and six local governments. The prosecution did not clarify in the charge that the defendants and the organization attempted to seize power, whether they They plan to seize control of local governments or the federal government directly, explaining the impossibility of the charge against them.
Al-Zayoudi, who is representing 10 defendants in the case, continued his plea on behalf of his clients, saying that the prosecution accused one of them of being a member of the organization’s investment committee, and he was arrested last March, explaining that his client is not a businessman, and he denied the charges against him, and his name was not mentioned. Among the members of the committee, he does not know its members and has never communicated with them.
He added that one of his clients was subjected to pressure before giving his statement, and his and his wife’s properties were suspended three months before the arrest warrant was issued for him. He pointed out that the witness’s statement about information related to a group of shares owned by his client contained errors and the witness should not give his testimony before he gave his testimony. He reviewed all the information and verified it, explaining that the prosecution accused a number of his clients of being members of the secret organization’s investment committee, but they denied the accusation, so that the case papers It contained no documents or emails about the meetings that the prosecution accused them of holding, and they denied the existence of any means of communication between them.
Lawyer Al-Haddad also argued that the charge against his only client of establishing and managing a secret organization aimed at seizing power was invalid, and that he hosted and chaired a secret meeting for the organization, demanding that he be acquitted of the charges and released on bail, in reserve, until the case is completed and the ruling is issued, indicating that it is necessary to Focus on the accused charge and investigate it before proceeding with the imprisonment of his client.
He added, “His client has been disconnected from the Al-Islah Society in Dubai since 2005, based on the testimonies of the other defendants, and he was not aware of what was going on in the meeting at his home and the attendees,” explaining that his client received a call from his brother asking him to host a group of people in the council of his house. He agreed to open his meeting before them, but he was not present at the time of the meeting and did not attend it and he did not know whether it was a secret meeting or not, adding that “the Public Prosecution did not bother to research and investigate the charge.” attributed to him.”
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news
