Final defence arguments on Tuesday in UAE secret group trial

Abu Dhabi: The conclusion of the defence arguments in the case of 94 Emiratis accused of belonging to a clandestine group that allegedly plotted to overthrow the government will be heard by the State Security Court at the federal Supreme Court today.

Yesterday’s hearing was adjourned after a five-hour session with a single 45-minute intermission.

Presiding Judge Falah Al Hajiri postponed the hearing until today and ordered the continued imprisonment of the male suspects and the continued holding of the female suspects out on bail. The judge also mentioned that ten more suspects continue to remain at large.

Monday’s session was held to hear pleas from four of the accused men and three lawyers, while one advocate submitted documents of his pleas to be presented in Tuesday’s session. The first lawyer represented six suspects while the second lawyer represented ten suspects. The third lawyer represented one suspect and the fourth represented nine suspects, making the total number of suspects represented during yesterday’s session 26.

Judge Al Hajiri clarified that Tuesday’s hearings would be exclusively assigned to Abdul Hamid Al Kumaiti, who will speak on the behalf of 68 suspects. All suspects have denied all accusations brought against them.

The suspects who spoke in their own defence were former lawyers and judges. The fourth suspect was a former judge and commented that it was his first time in 26 years of practising law to do so rather than listen to others’ appeals.

In their appeal, the four suspects focused on the invalidity of prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, and explained that their testimonies did not prove that any illegal act was committed.

During their defence pleas, the suspects questioned the process by which they were arrested, interrogated, searched by the Attorney-General’s office, and by the national security Attorney-General’s office. The suspects mentioned that the procedures of their arrests were in complete contravention of the UAE code of criminal laws (180, and 181). The suspects also alluded to articles (212, 240, 241, 242,244 and 246) in support of their claim.

The prime suspect, a lawyer, started to plead in his own defence. He alleged that proper procedures were not followed when he was arrested and that he was transported to solitary confinement. He claimed that the search of his home and vehicle were in contravention of article 212 of the criminal law. He accordingly requested that the charges against him be dropped on the grounds that there was no evidence to support the charges.

In his appeal, as he spoke about the accusation of attempting to overthrow the government, the first suspect said: “The prosecution has made up accusations and put words in the suspects’ mouths that we did not say. Most of the suspects have retired, stopped working due to their age or ill health, or are housewives. Such people cannot commit an act as horrible as overthrowing the system because this goes beyond logic and reason.”

He also accused the prosecution’s procedures of being illogical and not serious, particularly as he discussed the prosecution’s sources of information.

The suspect said: “The prosecution depended on two sources, which are a USB drive and unidentified people, both of which have been made up.”

He claimed that the USB drive presented by prosecution as evidence did not belong to the suspect although the prosecution said the USB drive was found in his car. He also claimed the prosecution had examined over 54,000 e-mails in his inbox and failed to find one piece of evidence to prove he had connections with international sources.

At the end of his appeal, the suspect said he was innocent and denied all accusations against him and against the other suspects he represented.

The first lawyer in the defence team asked for charges to be dropped immediately against his clients and the deletion of all that had been documented in the interrogation files presented by the attorney-general. The lawyer also asked to drop any word that may wrongfully accuse his clients. The defence attorney also claimed that “the search warrant issued on May 16 to gather evidence, eavesdrop and tap, and the whole collection of evidence in general was illegitimate, and wouldn’t give the attorney-general the right to collect evidence and interrogate” his clients. The defence attorney also stated that the search and close monitoring warrants of 309 of the accused, a statement made by one of the national security officers during trial, was illegitimate.

The attorney claimed that the warrants were issued in complete disagreement with the criminal laws of the country, which states that no warrants are issued before initial interrogations. The attorney stated the entire search and evidence collection process was fundamentally based on assumptions and inaccurate unsubstantiated information.
The second defence attorney was representing another ten of the accused, chief among them the prime suspect who is accused of heading the clandestine organisation.

The third lawyer spoke in defence of one suspect, saying that his name was not in all documents presented by prosecution and that the committee of financial experts brought by the court did not say he was a member of any finance committee. He also requested the court to free the suspects with any bail it sees fit.

Before the end of the session the judge said that the lawyer’s pleas against the evidence were legal but the court has the right to decide if the investigation files are truthful or not. He said the court also has the right to decide if the investigations are based on clear evidence or not.