Man accused of spreading confidential information appears at State Security Court

ABU DHABI // A government employee accused of spreading information about the entity he worked for was just “chit-chatting”, lawyers said in the State Security Court on Monday.

A B, 43, is accused of sharing confidential news and information concerning the government organisation where he worked, with agents of a foreign country.

However, during defence presentations, his lawyers Aref Al Shamsi and Ali Al Mannaei said there was no evidence that A B was spreading confidential information.

Mr Al Shamsi said: “The materials of the crime are not found. The human resources law states any employee must sign a non-disclosure agreement, yet the defendant denied signing any document. Also, the information discussed by my client [with the agents] are regular questions on general information. He did not spread confidential information as the accusation suggests.”

Mr Al Mannaei said A B was merely making conversation with the men and did not disclose any information that could harm the state or any employee in the organisation he worked for.

“A B deals with the sports department in his workplace, and he was only talking to those agents because he could speak the language. He did not know his general conversation would lead to such repercussions and anyway, there is no evidence that he had said something harmful to his place of work or the state,” he said.

Judge Falah Al Hajeri allowed the defendant to speak for himself.

A B said he had never given out any confidential information related to his job.

“I am just an employee responsible for sports events; I am not given any confidential information to begin with,” he said. “The witnesses said they found a document with names and numbers on it. Well that paper belongs to me and the names are those who are in the sports field.

“I never gave out information to anyone. I have several awards and have excellent work conduct. Whatever is mentioned in the media is not my responsibility. I ask to be acquitted.”

Both lawyers requested the defendant to be acquitted on grounds of a lack of evidence.

The verdict was adjourned until March 30.