General

A Sharjah court has sentenced a man to six months in prison for defrauding a buyer of Dh692,000 in a fake wholesale iPhone transaction, ruling that he used false commercial claims and deceptive methods to obtain the money without delivering the promised devices.

The verdict was issued on July 16, 2026, by the fifth misdemeanour circuit at the Sharjah Court of First Instance, which found the defendant guilty of fraud under the UAE Crimes and Punishments Law. The court also ordered him to pay judicial fees and referred the victim’s compensation claim to the competent civil court, allowing the victim to pursue financial damages.

According to prosecution records, the defendant falsely claimed that he owned and operated a mobile phone trading business and could supply 160 iPhone 17 Pro Max devices valued at Dh692,000.

Investigators said the accused created the impression that he was a legitimate electronics supplier and used the alleged false representation to convince the buyer to complete the purchase and hand over the payment.

Further investigations revealed that the defendant did not own a licensed mobile phone trading company and had no stock of the devices he claimed he could provide. He was subsequently charged with obtaining money through fraudulent means and misleading representations.

The incident reportedly took place on February 20, 2024, near Emirates Post on Jamal Abdul Nasser Street in Sharjah.

Court documents stated that after negotiations over the purchase, the buyer arrived at the agreed location carrying Dh692,000 in cash inside a laptop bag, believing he was completing a genuine commercial transaction.

The defendant allegedly received the money and told the buyer that he would collect the phones from a nearby location and return shortly. However, prosecutors said he left the area on foot and failed to deliver any of the devices.

Investigations showed that the defendant later contacted the buyer through WhatsApp and shared the location of a building in Al Nahda, asking him to wait there for the delivery. Prosecutors said the message was intended to delay the buyer and conceal the alleged fraud.

A witness who accompanied the buyer during the transaction confirmed seeing the cash being handed over and supported the victim’s account of events.

The court examined witness statements, investigation reports and other evidence before concluding that the defendant had deliberately presented himself as a genuine trader despite lacking the ability or intention to complete the transaction.

During the trial, the defendant denied the allegations and argued that the matter was a commercial dispute rather than a criminal offence.

However, the court rejected the defence argument, ruling that the case involved intentional fraud rather than a failed business transaction. It found that the defendant had obtained the money through false claims and deceptive conduct.

The court said the evidence established that the defendant had misrepresented his business status, gained the buyer’s confidence and arranged the cash handover despite having no ability to fulfil the order.

The judgment noted that his actions after receiving the money, including failing to deliver the phones and directing the buyer to another location through WhatsApp, further supported the finding of fraudulent intent.

In its final ruling, the court sentenced the defendant to six months in prison, ordered him to pay judicial fees and referred the victim’s claim for compensation to the civil court for further proceedings.

US prosecutors have withdrawn subpoenas issued to journalists at The New York Times (NYT) who reported on security concerns surrounding President Donald Trump’s travel on a new Air Force One aircraft donated by Qatar.

A prosecutor from Manhattan US Attorney Jay Clayton’s office informed a federal judge on Thursday that the government would withdraw the subpoenas, which were issued on July 10 as part of an investigation into the alleged leak of sensitive national security information.

The subpoenas were the latest move by the Trump administration to compel journalists to disclose confidential sources in leak investigations — a practice that press freedom advocates have warned could discourage investigative reporting.

US District Judge Arun Subramanian questioned government lawyers for around 90 minutes about procedural issues in the investigation, including the handling of subpoenas seeking reporters’ phone records.

Following the hearing, prosecutor Sean Buckley told the court that the government was “prepared unilaterally to withdraw the subpoenas”, while adding that the investigation remained ongoing and that officials could seek new subpoenas against the journalists in the future.

Clayton, who was nominated by Trump to become the next US Director of National Intelligence, issued the subpoenas after The New York Times reported that Trump had continued using the existing Air Force One aircraft after concerns were raised that the new plane donated by Qatar lacked anti-missile and other defensive systems.

The government argued that the newspaper’s reporting raised a “substantial national security concern” because it involved the alleged disclosure of classified national defence information while the President was travelling during a period of heightened tensions with a foreign adversary, an apparent reference to Iran.

The reports were based on anonymous sources and emerged around the time a ceasefire in the US-Israeli conflict with Iran collapsed.

The New York Times had asked Judge Subramanian to dismiss the subpoenas, arguing that they were improperly issued and violated constitutional protections for a free press under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

In court filings, the newspaper alleged that the subpoenas were intended to intimidate and harass journalists. It also accused prosecutors of failing to follow internal Justice Department rules governing the use of subpoenas against members of the media, which require such measures to be used only in exceptional circumstances and with senior-level approval.

A Justice Department spokesperson said the investigation was continuing and that the government would prosecute individuals responsible for leaking classified information that threatened national security.

Buckley denied that the subpoenas were improperly issued but acknowledged that the Department of Justice had failed to notify reporters that their phone records had separately been obtained through subpoenas, as required under applicable rules.

Following the hearing, however, The New York Times said the government had effectively acknowledged that the subpoenas violated legal requirements and “should never have been issued”.

In a court filing earlier in the week, prosecutors argued that the First Amendment does not provide journalists with absolute protection from being required to disclose information during criminal investigations.

Growing Battle Over Press Freedom

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have previously sought to compel journalists to reveal confidential sources during leak investigations. However, press freedom organisations have accused the Trump administration of using subpoenas and search warrants against media organisations too aggressively, including actions involving The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

Critics have also alleged that Trump has used government authority and private lawsuits to pressure and intimidate news organisations.

The administration has rejected those accusations, saying its actions are aimed at prosecuting individuals who leak classified information rather than targeting journalists. Trump’s private legal team has separately argued that it is seeking accountability for what it describes as inaccurate media coverage.

Saudi Arabia’s Cabinet has approved an updated State Revenues Law as part of efforts to enhance fiscal governance, improve government revenue management and strengthen financial sustainability across the Kingdom.

The revised law, approved during the Cabinet’s session on Tuesday, introduces measures to improve the efficiency of revenue collection, strengthen compliance with government payments and establish clearer procedures for managing public receivables.

Minister of Finance Mohammed Al-Jadaan said the updated legislation would enable government entities to enhance revenue estimation mechanisms, improve the collection of government dues and streamline the settlement of outstanding debts while ensuring that payment procedures take into account taxpayers’
circumstances.

The new framework forms part of Saudi Arabia’s broader financial reforms aimed at improving governance, transparency and efficiency within the public sector, in line with the objectives of Saudi Vision 2030.

The law sets out clearer roles and responsibilities for relevant government bodies and introduces improved mechanisms for estimating government revenues over the medium and long term. These measures are expected to support better financial planning and enhance the accuracy of revenue forecasts.

It also establishes procedures for collecting government receivables and regulates payment and instalment arrangements under specific controls designed to promote fiscal discipline.

The updated legislation reflects Saudi Arabia’s continued efforts to modernise its financial system and ensure more effective management of public resources as the Kingdom advances its economic transformation agenda.

The Trump administration faces an arduous legal battle and mounting due process questions as it activates a little-used court designed to hear deportation cases involving suspected non-citizen terrorists, Bloomberg Law reported.

The US Department of Justice’s National Security Division launched proceedings last week before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) and is expected to expand on its application in a sealed submission on Wednesday. It is the first case to come before the court since it was established in 1996.

Congress created the ATRC to conduct individual deportation hearings involving suspected terrorists where the evidence is considered so sensitive that its disclosure could threaten national security.

Successive administrations have refrained from using the court, partly because other legal mechanisms have been available to detain and monitor suspected terrorists, according to former national security officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Other concerns have included the court’s strict requirements for the use of classified evidence and the possibility that individuals could be deported without being allowed to examine the government’s case against them.

“This is essentially stepping into a car that has never run since it was released from the factory legislatively,” said Aram Gavoor, who served as Senior Counsel for National Security at the DOJ during President Donald Trump’s first term and the early part of Joe Biden’s administration.

“Because it’s a series of firsts, naturally the court is going to want to get it right,” Gavoor said.

Judges serving on the long-dormant court are expected to examine the Justice Department’s arguments closely as the administration continues to face broader judicial scrutiny over due process concerns relating to detained immigrants and other legal challenges to President Trump’s deportation agenda, former officials said.

DOJ spokesperson Emily Covington said the department intended to “use every tool available to bring alien terrorists to justice and remove them from the United States, including this court.”

Covington declined to comment further because the case remains under seal and its details are classified.

Dormant History

The administration’s decision to activate the court surprised former DOJ and DHS lawyers, who noted that the federal government has historically relied on alternative counter-terrorism and immigration laws.

When it was created, the ATRC was regarded as a major legislative counter-terrorism initiative. It was modelled on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which reviews and authorises government applications for electronic surveillance and other national security measures.

The ATRC consists of five US district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. All current members also serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Under federal law, the ATRC may approve a removal application if the government establishes that the individual falls within the legal definition of an “alien terrorist” and that pursuing deportation through another legal route would pose national security risks.

A 2004 report by a bipartisan national commission on terrorism found that DOJ lawyers had examined at least 100 potential cases for referral to the ATRC since its creation, but none proceeded.

During the Obama administration, the DOJ’s National Security Division reviewed whether the ATRC could be used to remove members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq living in the United States where proving terrorist links depended on classified evidence, said Chris Hardee, who served as the division’s Chief of Law and Policy from 2013 until last year.

“We concluded that it would not help in any case because, even if we could not pursue terrorism charges, there were criminal and immigration options that avoided relying on classified information, such as immigration fraud,” Hardee said.

He added that those alternatives were “far preferable” to relying on “a novel law in a specialised court that had never heard a case”.

The ATRC’s purpose also runs contrary to the broader philosophy of US counter-terrorism policy, said Thomas Warrick, a former senior DHS counter-terrorism official.

“If we had evidence that somebody was a terrorist, and especially if they’d committed terrorist acts against the United States, the whole purpose was to try to bring them here so they could be prosecuted, convicted and then put in jail,” said Warrick, now with the Atlantic Council.

Once an individual leaves the United States, “you lose oversight over what they’re doing or who their contacts are”, he said.

Logistical Challenges

The Trump administration also faces significant legal and procedural hurdles, particularly in relation to the handling of classified evidence, immigration law analysts said.

Under federal law, classified evidence may only be admitted if the ATRC concludes that the government’s unclassified summary provides sufficient information to enable the individual to prepare a defence.

If the court determines that the proposed summary is inadequate, it may still approve the application and proceed to a hearing, but only if it concludes that both the individual’s continued presence in the United States and disclosure of the summary would cause serious and irreparable harm to national security or to a person’s physical safety.

Lawful permanent residents are entitled to have a special attorney appointed to examine and challenge classified evidence on their behalf.

However, that safeguard does not automatically extend to other non-citizens, raising concerns that some individuals could face deportation without ever seeing the evidence against them, said Margy O’Herron, a former senior immigration adviser in the Biden administration who spent nearly two decades as a DOJ attorney.

As the Trump administration has increasingly relied on rarely used laws to advance its deportation agenda—including the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — the activation of the ATRC “appears to be the latest weapon in its scorched-earth deportation strategy”, O’Herron said.

The court’s secretive nature also limits public and congressional oversight of the Justice Department, according to Elora Mukherjee, Director of Columbia Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic.

The only indication of the court’s thinking so far came in a 16 July order requesting additional submissions from the government. ATRC Chief Judge Joan Ericksen stated that the court had questions “about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions”.

“The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration,” Ericksen wrote.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from revoking work permits held by tens of thousands of asylum seekers and immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the United States.

US District Judge Nathaniel Gorton in Boston ruled in favour of a coalition of immigrant rights groups and labour unions that challenged the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies implementing new immigration restrictions approved by Congress last year.

The judge’s order will remain in effect until he decides whether to issue a longer-term suspension of the administration’s policy. Gorton said he would rule on that issue by August 5. USCIS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The restrictions stem from President Donald Trump’s signature tax and spending law, passed by the Republican-led Congress in July 2025. The legislation introduced fees for asylum applications and imposed new limits on employment authorisation for people holding TPS.

TPS allows migrants from countries affected by war, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions to legally live and work in the US while it remains unsafe for them to return home.

As part of Trump’s broader immigration crackdown, his administration has sought to end TPS protections for nationals from more than a dozen countries. The US Supreme Court last month allowed the administration to proceed with ending TPS for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants.

The lawsuit, filed by the liberal legal group Democracy Forward on behalf of immigrant advocates and labour organisations, argued that USCIS had unlawfully implemented the new restrictions and that the policies should be suspended.

The plaintiffs specifically challenged measures that could result in thousands of TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine losing their work authorisation. They argued that USCIS had improperly shortened employment permits by applying the new restrictions retroactively.

Skye Perryman, president and chief executive officer of Democracy Forward, said the ruling would ensure that thousands of families would not lose their livelihoods while courts examine whether the administration’s actions are lawful.

The previous Biden administration extended TPS protections for nationals of El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine in January 2025. TPS remains in effect for El Salvador until September 9, and for Sudan and Ukraine until October 19.

The plaintiffs argued that USCIS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by introducing the new policies without public notice and an opportunity for comment. They also claimed the agency had unlawfully applied the 2025 law’s employment restrictions retroactively without clear authority from Congress.

Judge Gorton declined to immediately block USCIS from collecting the newly introduced fees. However, he ruled that the agency cannot revoke work permits or impose penalties on individuals who fail to pay the fees while the legal challenge continues.

The case was filed in Boston, a jurisdiction frequently chosen by groups challenging Trump administration policies. It was assigned to Judge Gorton, one of the few judges on the court who was not appointed by a Democratic president. Gorton was appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

Sharjah Misdemeanours Court has sentenced a man to two months in jail followed by deportation after convicting him of breaking into a house and attempting to steal valuables.

The ruling came after evidence presented before the court, including surveillance footage, established that the accused had entered the residence and attempted to take belongings. The suspect also admitted to the charges during court proceedings.

The incident occurred when a resident reported that he had left his home with his family without locking the door. Shortly afterwards, he returned briefly to use the restroom and found an unknown person inside the apartment.

The homeowner confronted the intruder and searched him, but found no stolen items in his possession.

Police investigations later revealed, after examining security camera recordings, that the suspect had entered the apartment by taking advantage of the unlocked door. The footage showed him taking a mobile phone belonging to the resident before returning it to its original place after realising that the homeowner was present.

During the trial, the court questioned the accused over the charges. He confessed to entering the property and attempting to commit theft, leading the court to issue the conviction and sentence.

A US federal appeals court has decertified a shareholder class action accusing Boeing of prioritising profits over safety and overstating its commitment to aircraft safety before the January 2024 mid-air cabin panel blowout involving an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9.

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that shareholders, led by Rhode Island’s state treasurer, had failed to demonstrate how damages could be calculated on a class-wide basis or determine how much Boeing’s alleged misrepresentations artificially inflated its share price at different points.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr said the shareholders’ damages expert had presented only a series of “maybes”, “perhapses” and “what ifs”.

He also said the trial judge had not properly applied a 2013 US Supreme Court ruling that decertified an antitrust class action brought by Comcast cable television subscribers.

The Rhode Island treasurer and lawyers representing the shareholders did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Boeing and its legal representatives also did not immediately respond.

‘Safety Dominates Boeing’ Claim

Class actions allow groups of investors or consumers to pursue claims collectively, potentially reducing legal costs and increasing potential recoveries.

Shareholders alleged that Boeing inflated its stock price through false and misleading statements, including assurances that “safety dominates Boeing” and that employees could raise concerns when problems emerged.

The claims followed two fatal crashes involving Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in Indonesia and Ethiopia in 2018 and 2019, which killed 346 people.

On 5 January 2024, a cabin panel blew out on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 shortly after take-off from Portland, Oregon. One flight attendant and seven passengers suffered minor injuries.

Boeing’s share price fell 8% on the next trading day.

The blowout triggered a criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice, which later said Boeing had failed to comply with a 2021 agreement requiring the company to pay more than $2.5 billion to resolve a criminal charge linked to the MAX crashes.

In June 2025, the National Transportation Safety Board said Boeing had failed to install four bolts securing the cabin panel on Flight 1282 and lacked adequate training and oversight to prevent the incident.

In March 2025, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, had certified a class of shareholders who owned Boeing stock between 7 January 2021 and 8 January 2024. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Boeing is also facing a separate shareholder class action arising from the MAX crashes, which was certified by a Chicago federal judge in March.

Oracle Corp. founder Larry Ellison and his son, Hollywood producer David Ellison, are facing a shareholder lawsuit alleging they struck an unlawful deal with President Donald Trump to clear the way for their blockbuster acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

A shareholder filed the lawsuit on Wednesday against the Ellisons and other members of the Paramount Skydance Corp. board, seeking to block the $110 billion transaction. The complaint, filed in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, alleges that the deal involved promises of “illegal private benefits” to President Trump in exchange for removing federal regulatory obstacles. It also seeks monetary damages.

According to the filing, the alleged arrangements include the possible removal of CNN anchors who have criticised the president and “the opportunity to improperly funnel cash” to Trump through settlements of his legal claims against the network.

“The Ellisons’ actions not only harm the reputations of the news outlets they currently own, which are hemorrhaging viewers, but are also latent liabilities waiting to be triggered by a future administration,” the lawsuit states.

Paramount did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. Warner Bros. Discovery and Trump are not named as defendants in the case.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges surrounding what would become the largest transaction in Hollywood history. It follows litigation targeting an earlier $8 billion merger between Shari Redstone’s Paramount Global and David Ellison’s Skydance Media, a deal that has already reshaped the media and entertainment landscape.

Since the takeover, CBS has ended the long-running “Late Show” hosted by Trump critic Stephen Colbert and made controversial changes to “60 Minutes”. The latest shareholder lawsuit comes in the same week that the Paramount-Warner deal faced legal challenges from 12 US states and the Writers Guild of America.

The 59-page complaint portrays the two mergers as part of a broader pattern of alleged unlawful negotiations with Trump. Since the Paramount-Skydance deal closed, the lawsuit claims, “the Ellisons proceeded to remake CBS in the president’s image, bought properties he enjoyed, and even hosted events to honour him”.

“These actions helped the Ellisons, but it appears to have harmed Paramount,” the complaint alleges.

Future Litigation Concerns

The lawsuit claims that after Trump allegedly influenced the bidding contest between Paramount and Netflix Inc. for Warner Bros. Discovery, federal regulators adopted a notably limited approach towards the merger.

The complaint also alleges that there was little or no scrutiny from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), despite a $24 billion stake in the transaction involving Saudi, Qatari and Emirati co-investors.

“Future presidential administrations are likely to subject such an ownership structure to intense and persistent scrutiny, creating significant long-term exposure for Paramount,” the lawsuit says.

The shareholder is asking the court to prevent the defendants from benefiting personally from what it describes as unlawful conduct.

The case involves shareholder derivative claims, which are filed on behalf of a company against its directors, officers or controlling shareholders. Such lawsuits typically seek to recover funds for the company.

Investor Paul Robbins, who is leading the lawsuit, is represented by Thomas Law LLC, Public Integrity Project and Freedom of the Press Foundation. The Ellisons, Paramount and other board members have not yet appeared in court.

The case is Robbins v. Ellison, Delaware Court of Chancery, No. 2026-0928, filed on July 15, 2026.

The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts recorded a landmark first half of 2026, registering 810 cases with claims worth Dh10 billion ($2.73 billion), as businesses increasingly turn to Dubai as a preferred destination for resolving complex commercial disputes.

The number of cases filed between January and June 2026 rose 25 per cent compared with the same period last year, while the total value of claims increased 48 per cent, averaging Dh55 million in claims every day.

The figures, released on Monday, represent the first half-year performance since the DIFC Courts unveiled their five-year strategy in December 2025. They highlight growing international confidence in Dubai’s legal framework and the willingness of businesses to voluntarily select the DIFC Courts to settle high-value disputes.

Nearly one-third of all cases — 243 out of 810 — were filed under the Courts’ opt-in jurisdiction, where parties voluntarily agree to use the DIFC Courts despite not being legally required to do so. At the Court of First Instance (CFI), opt-in cases accounted for 42 per cent of claims.

The DIFC Courts’ Arbitration Division also recorded significant growth, handling 37 claims worth Dh3.17 billion, a 61 per cent increase year-on-year. The rise reflects growing reliance on the DIFC Courts as a supervisory jurisdiction for arbitration-related matters.

“These are the figures of a jurisdiction chosen, not assigned. Nearly one in three cases arrived by the parties’ own agreement, with the average claim before our Court of First Instance more than doubling to Dh112.6 million. Disputes of that value and complexity require proven systems and expertise,” said Justice Omar Al Mheiri, Director of the DIFC Courts.


The CFI and its specialised divisions handled 110 claims during the first half of the year, compared with 86 in H1 2025, marking a 28 per cent increase. The claims had a combined value of Dh9 billion, with an average claim size of Dh117.2 million.

The main CFI division alone recorded 72 claims, an 18 per cent rise from the previous year. The average value of claims more than doubled to Dh112.6 million, reflecting the growing complexity and scale of disputes brought before the Court.

The Small Claims Tribunal, which provides access to justice for individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises, processed 479 claims worth Dh44.7 million. The average claim value stood at Dh94,000, with filings increasing 5 per cent year-on-year.

Enforcement activity also witnessed a sharp rise, more than doubling to 220 filings in the first half of 2026, compared with 106 during the same period last year. The figure represents more than one enforcement application every day on average. Eight applications involved the enforcement of judgments and orders issued outside the DIFC Courts.

“Behind every statistic is a court user, a business protecting a contract, an individual resolving a dispute, or a family planning ahead,” Justice Al Mheiri said.

Digital Model

The DIFC Courts continued to expand their digital-first approach, with 99 per cent of proceedings — 818 out of 824 — conducted online during the reporting period. Only six hearings took place in person.

During the six months, the Courts issued 1,766 digital orders and judgments, reinforcing their position as one of the region’s most technology-driven judicial systems.

Other services also recorded steady demand. The DIFC Courts’ Wills Service registered 1,925 wills in the first half of 2026, taking total registrations since its launch beyond 14,300.

The Courts’ practitioners’ register now includes 1,351 lawyers from 256 law firms, while its Pro Bono Programme supported 315 individuals with assistance from 55 volunteer lawyers representing 39 firms.

The Dubai Public Prosecution, in collaboration with the Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government (MBRSG), has celebrated the graduation of 30 leaders and department heads from the ‘Public Prosecution Leaders on the Path of Mohammed bin Rashid’ programme, an AI-powered leadership initiative that integrates behavioural insights with modern executive education.

Held at the Dubai Public Prosecution headquarters, the graduation ceremony was attended by His Excellency Counsellor Essam Issa Al Humaidan, Attorney General of Dubai, and His Excellency Dr Ali bin Sebaa Al Marri, Executive President of MBRSG, along with senior officials and leaders from both institutions.

The three-month programme is a specialised leadership development initiative that extends beyond traditional training methods. It is based on the ‘On the Path of Mohammed bin Rashid’ model, inspired by the leadership approach of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai. The model translates his leadership philosophy into a practical framework designed to empower leaders to carry out their responsibilities with confidence, efficiency and competence.

The programme combines artificial intelligence applications and behavioural insights to enhance government decision-making, creating a comprehensive learning ecosystem that bridges academic knowledge with practical implementation.

During the ceremony, His Excellency Counsellor Essam Al Humaidan praised the graduates for their dedication, commitment and active participation throughout the programme. He congratulated them on successfully completing this important milestone in their leadership journey.

He highlighted that training and empowering this group of second-tier leaders reflects Dubai Public Prosecution’s commitment to investing in national talent and equipping future leaders with modern and sustainable leadership capabilities. These efforts, he said, strengthen their ability to adapt to future challenges, contribute effectively to decision-making and lead with innovation in support of government excellence and the advancement of the judicial system.

Meanwhile, His Excellency Dr Ali bin Sebaa Al Marri congratulated the graduates, emphasising the importance of investing in national leaders to build governments that are prepared for the future.

“Investing in national leaders is fundamental to building governments that are well prepared for the future,” he said. “The ‘Public Prosecution Leaders on the Path of Mohammed bin Rashid’ programme reflects our vision at the Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government to equip government leaders with the capabilities required for the future through specialised executive education programmes that combine leadership thinking with practical application and respond to the rapid transformation of government administration.”

Shaikha Ahmed Al Mheiri, Director of Executive Education at MBRSG, said the institution was committed to creating a comprehensive executive education experience based on practical application and tailored to the specific requirements of the Dubai Public Prosecution.

“Through specialised training modules, participants developed innovative solutions to real-world government challenges. The programme reflects our approach to executive education at the Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government, where we aim to deliver flexible and customised programmes that enable leaders to transform knowledge into sustainable institutional impact,” she said.