1.1159917-2929953475
The Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi. Image Credit: Reuters

Abu Dhabi: A clandestine group, whose alleged members are being tried by the State Security Court, met a number of times in the past two years to discuss plans “to overthrow the government,” prosecution witnesses told the court on Monday.

The court, part of the Federal Supreme Court, adjourned the hearing to today to listen to more witnesses presented by the prosecution.

The trial, which started on March 4, is presided over by Chief Justice Falah Al Hajiri.

Ninety-four Emiratis, including two suspects who are still at  large, are being tried on charges of threatening national security, forming a clandestine group aimed at opposing the political system of the country and overthrowing the government.

The hearing on Monday was attended by six representatives from civil society organisations, as well as 15 media representatives, six defence lawyers and five from the Public Prosecution.

Three Public Prosecutor witnesses told the court details of the investigation into the group’s activities, which started in 2010.

They testified that the defendants have formed and ran a secret organisation under the name of’ Al Islah Society’.

The organisation’s structure is similar to that of a state, a key prosecution witness said.

“They actually established a state within a state,” he added. It comprises a Shura Council that oversaw different committees including one that attempted to spread the group’s ideology within some expatriate communities especially the Asian community such as Indians and Bangladeshis, the court was told.

Members of the group have conducted at least three planning meetings in the first half of 2011, the witness said.

In those meetings, he explained, they drew plans to spread their ideas and overthrow the government.

“As the organisation grew bigger, the committee incharge of managing the wealth of the group decided to invest the money in various lucrative sectors,” another witness, who is the prosecution’s financial expert, told the court.

He explained an investment plan set by the group to finance the organisation’s activities, saying it invested assets in 15 different companies involved in real estate projects, fund management, private schools, training centres, and trading in foodstuff.

He alleged that the organisation used to take 5 to 7 per cent of each member’s income to finance the group.

The organisation has launched a satellite channel, Hayatona TV (Our Life) based in Beirut aimed at “promoting values and interests of the group and enhance the image of the members,” he added.

UAE group ‘linked to Muslim Brotherhood’, trial told

 Before the session started, Judge Falah Al Hajiri addressed reporters saying, “I request reporters not to write details that witnesses say. You may simply take the gist. I also hope you do not publish names of the defendants or witnesses or others who may be mentioned during discussion.”

The judge then announced that all the defendants were present with the exception of Mohammad Hamad Al Shamsi and Mohammad Jasem Darwish.

The judge asked the first witness — an investigation officer at the state security — to explain what investigations had led to.

He responded: “Investigations have confirmed the defendants manage a clandestine organisation belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood. The organisation’s structure is similar to that of the country and has a Shura Council (parliament) consisting of 30 members, who are members of the General Assembly of the organisation.”

He added that the Shura Council has established two main offices — a management office with branches across the UAE and an office of Central Committees.

The offices constitute other committees including a planning committee; a communities committee, which spreads ideas to other communities — mainly Asian ones; a legal committee to communicate with international legal parties and distort the UAE’s image; and a charity committee to raise funds and financially support the organisation.

Additionally, the organisation has an investment committee; a media committee, which spreads their principal ideas through the internet and social networking websites; a public relations committee to connect with international organisations and request support; and a dialogue committee to connect with the public.

The main witness revealed that there is female leadership in the organisation, which includes a women’s Shura Council. With six members from across the emirates, it also consists of various committees, namely, an educational committee, a media committee, a social committee, and a committee for virtue.

The main witness added that the organisation’s external work is led by its board of directors. They have established three committees which are: a legal committee; a media committee; and a support committee responsible for travelling abroad and meeting with officials of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and various human rights organisations.

Witnesses testified that a planner has been found on a USB drive taken from one of the defendants, Ahmad Yousuf Al Zaabi who was assigned by the organisation’s head, Sultan Al Qasimi. Upon interrogation, authorities managed to get the names of all the members.

Witnesses also said that investigations revealed that the members met on February 5, 2011 at a defendant’s home in Umm Al Quwain where they formed a justice committee and laid down rules on how to incite international and local public opinion.

Witnesses testified that the second meeting was held on May 26, 2011 at a defendant’s house in Ras Al Khaimah where members discussed ways to overthrow the government.

According to witnesses, another meeting was held on June 30, 2011 where members discussed strategic plans to introduce political changes in the UAE.

Lawyers started by questioning the main witness about one of the female defendants, Najeeba Al Hosni who is accused of being the head of the female group.

The main witness, however, gave brief answers and refused to answer most questions, referring to the prosecution.

One of the lawyers presented a memorandum accusing the prosecution of forging the defendants’ signature on the interrogation records. The prosecution, however, refuted the claim.