The Supreme Federal Council supports the application of the punishment of banditry against those accused of murder

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the application of the punishment of armed banditry and the execution of two defendants who deliberately killed a person with the aim of demanding a ransom from his family, and decided to transfer their papers to His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the State, to ratify the ruling before implementing it, indicating that it is not permissible to abandon the punishment of banditry, or Dropping it, or pardoning it, whenever it is proven, which is what was confirmed in the incident.

In detail, the Public Prosecution referred two defendants to criminal trial, as they deliberately and premeditatedly killed a person by luring him to a private warehouse, and requested that they be punished.

The two defendants admitted in the evidence-gathering report, and in the Public Prosecution’s investigations, that they agreed to lure the victim to the warehouse where one of them worked, with a trick that the second defendant convinced him of, which was that he wanted to make decorations for a party, after they learned of the nature of the victim’s work.

The second accused was able to lure his victim to the warehouse, which they chose because it was far from urban areas so that he would not be able to call for help, while the first accused was hiding there, waiting for their arrival.

When the victim felt in danger, he tried to escape, but they prevented him from doing so, and they dropped him to the ground and paralyzed him. One of them suffocated him, covered his mouth, and sat on his chest to prevent him from calling for help, while the second tied his hands and feet, and put a sticker on his mouth and face, and his soul was exhausted. They seized his phone and wallet, and disposed of his body.

The Criminal Court of First Instance ruled, in presence and unanimously, that the defendants be executed, and its decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The defendants did not accept this ruling, so they appealed it by way of cassation, demanding that the incident be considered nothing more than a beating that led to death on the grounds that they intended to detain the victim to demand ransom from his family. , and not killing him, pointing out that the killing occurred by chance to prevent the victim from trying to escape in order to take custody of him and release him with a ransom, and that the intention Taking the life of the victim was not intentional, in addition to the fact that their conviction ruling applied the rules of punishment for armed banditry despite the absence of its elements, and the provisions of clemency were not applied against them, so it is flawed in a way that requires it to be overturned.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ appeal, stating that the crime charged against them represented in reality a crime of banditry and the killing of a guerrilla, and the provisions of Islamic Sharia regarding the punishment for banditry were applied to the incident, supporting the conclusions of the death sentence for the defendants, since if the point of banditry is established, it may not be abandoned or dropped. Or pardon him because it is the right of God Almighty.

The court stated that hirabah according to the Malikis is intimidating the path, whether the warrior intends the money or not, and that hirabah is included in taking money deceitfully, or by means of trickery with the use of force, or not using it, as in the case of deceiving the victim and taking him to a place far from relief. It is not required to block the road in a specific place. Where the fear of passers-by is achieved, it is considered an act of war, and it makes no difference whether that is in urban areas, homes, or roads.

The Malikis considered that any departure from the public order to commit crimes is considered banditry, as long as the perpetrator has the ability to disturb and intimidate, regardless of the type of this ability, whether he is an individual or a group. Malik, Al-Shafi’i and others do not stipulate the presence of weapons. Rather, it is sufficient for them that the warrior rely on his strength. According to the Malikis, mere deception is sufficient, even if he does not use force, for the warrior to use his limbs, such as jabbing or hitting the size of the palm, and that banditry in itself is a crime and is considered to have a meaning. Fighting against God and His Messenger, not the theft or otherwise committed by the warriors.