ABU DHABI // A lawyer defending 30 men accused of running a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood has claimed the Federal Supreme Court is unconstitutional, and called for the men to be acquitted.
Abdulhameed Al Kumaiti said the real criminal in the case was an officer at the Supreme Council for National Security, K H.
The officer gave a confidential memory drive to an Egyptian defendant knowing it contained classified government details on the Muslim Brotherhood, he alleged at the court on Tuesday.
The men are on trial accused of running a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Twenty are Egyptian and 10 are Emirati. The Emiratis were convicted of sedition in July.
“He [K H] did not see M A [an Egyptian defendant] copy the files personally? How was he sure months later that it was him who copied the files?” Mr Al Kumaiti asked.
“It is hard to believe that a trained officer like himself could be able to blindly trust M A with such crucial information.
“K H is the true criminal, for he willingly gave away the USB without even warning M A of its contents,” he said.
“So tell me, your honour, who is worthy of the punishment?”
Mr Al Kumaiti said the prosecution did not take its job seriously, as the files showed M A was a sports club manager aged 45. But he was younger and just a secretary.
“They did not respect the procedures of the case.”
The lawyer claimed the main piece of evidence, the memory drive, was not handled properly by the inspectors.
“The USB was kept in a regular bag, like the ones we get from grocery stores, not an evidence bag. It was not sealed with the wax like it should have been,” Mr Al Kumaiti said.
“The report on the USB, that should have also been confidential, was given to lawyers who did not represent this case.
“How can we know the files have not been given to others?”
He claimed confidential information on the memory drive had been leaked on the internet and the country’s confidentiality standards were at risk.
The trial previously heard the memory drive contained details of people connected to the Brotherhood, PowerPoint presentations about the group and other classified information.
Mr Al Kumaiti was the last of the defence lawyers to give his presentation. Last week he asked for more time to study the files as he had not been granted access until the last minute.
On Tuesday he referred to the case as invalid because of the procedural mistakes and claimed it had been fabricated.
The accused had suffered physical and psychological mistreatment and were asked to sign their evidence documents that were plagiarised, Mr Al Kumaiti claimed.
“The answers have been copied and pasted from one defendant to another. The same commas, periods and spelling mistakes are found on all the pages for each defendant,” he said.
The court previously heard that members of the Muslim Brotherhood channelled US$2 million, or Dh7.3m, to the parent group in Egypt.
Mr Al Kumaiti claimed it was not possible for a small number of people to raise this much money in a short time and there was no proof.
“These people came to the UAE to find jobs. That does not mean they don’t have families back home that they need to send money to.”
Mr Al Kumaiti said the accused did not know each other and there were no reports showing signs of calls, emails or text messages between them.
“Prosecution said the organisation meets 3,000 times a year. How could they have the time?” he asked. “With thousands of Egyptians in the country, how can the members be 16 only?”
After speaking for three hours, he asked for all of the accused to be acquitted.
Nine Emirati accused failed to attend the hearing for a second time, in protest against not being allowed to meet their lawyers.
Members of the Emirates Human Rights Association, Emirates Jurists Lawyers Association, Emirates Writers’ Union, the media and a representative from the Egyptian Embassy all attended the hearing.
The verdict will be announced on January 21.
aalkhoori@thenational.ae