The case involving members of the Muslim Brotherhood charged with crimes related to the establishment and management of a terrorist organisation, as well as money laundering, has been adjourned to April 18.
The State Security Chamber of the Abu Dhabi Federal Appeals Court postponed the hearing in Case No. 87 of 2023 - State Security Offences, to allow for the completion of the defense's pleas.
A total of 84 defendants are accused of establishing and managing a clandestine terrorist organisation in the UAE named the 'Justice and Dignity Committee'. The charges include plotting terrorist activities, fundraising for the organisation, and obscuring the origin and destination of funds.
The State Security Chamber of the Abu Dhabi Federal Appeals Court has adjourned the hearing in Case No.87 of 2023-State Security Offences, involving the terrorist 'Justice and Dignity Committee Organisation' to April 18, in order to complete hearing pleas of the defence.
Eighty-four defendants stand accused in this case of establishing and managing a clandestine terrorist organisation in the UAE known as the 'Justice and Dignity Committee'.
The charges against them include planning terrorist acts, fundraising for the Organisation, and concealing the source and destination of those funds.
During Thursday's session, attended by the families of the defendants and media representatives, the court listened to over three and a half hours of defense arguments.
The attorneys representing the accused questioned the validity of the charges put forth by the Prosecution and disputed the evidence presented, which included investigations, technical reports, and financial analyses.
They contended that these reports heavily relied on analysis, leaving room for doubt and uncertainty. They urged for the acquittal and release of their clients, citing their lack of awareness of the true intentions of the organisation as evidence of absence of criminal intent.
During the defense's presentation, the court permitted any of the accused who wished to speak about themselves and provide commentary on the prosecution's evidence and arguments. Additionally, they were allowed to add to the arguments and defenses presented.
Specifically, the defense argued during the session that the court lacked jurisdiction based on a prior judgment in a previous case, referred to as Case No. 79 of 2012. This constituted a cornerstone of their defense strategy, unanimously endorsed by all defendants.
It is important to note that the Public Prosecution had previously dedicated parts of its sessions to addressing the argument regarding lack of jurisdiction. They highlighted distinctions between the current case and past trials involving the defendants, supported by evidence.
Furthermore, the Public Prosecution bolstered its argument by outlining the criteria governing the dismissal of a case due to a prior judgment, citing specific rulings from the Federal Supreme Court to substantiate their position.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
