UAE: Attorney General orders immediate investigation and referral to urgent trial of Bangladeshi protesters
Gulf States have a zero tolerance policy for public expression of dissent even if it is done peacefully. The Gulf States' rulers intolerance to dissent extends to non-citizens who are expressing dissent with other governments on their soil. A case in point is the action taken by the rulers of UAE against people from Bangladesh who protesting the violence unleashed by the Bangladeshi government against protesters in that country. The Attorney General of the UAE, Counselor Dr. Hamad Al Shamsi, ordered an immediate investigation into the arrested Bangladeshis who gathered and caused "riots" in a number of the country's streets.
Media outlets from the region reported that a team of members of the Public Prosecution had begun investigating the arrested defendants, and the investigations, which were conducted under the direct supervision of the Attorney General, revealed that they committed the crimes of gathering in a public place and demonstrating against their country's government, with the intent to cause riots.
In addition to preventing and obstructing the implementation of laws and regulations, disrupting the interests of individuals, harming them, exposing them to danger, preventing them from exercising their rights, disrupting traffic, attacking and damaging public and private property, and deliberately disrupting means of transportation, according to what was reported by the Emirates News Agency "WAM".
The crimes also included calling for and inciting these demonstrations, filming visual and audio clips of these actions, and publishing them on the Internet, which are acts that constitute crimes that affect the security of the country, disrupt public order, and are likely to endanger the interests of the state.
The Public Prosecution ordered their pretrial detention pending investigations, and the Attorney General ordered the defendants to be referred to an urgent trial.
WAM, the official news agency in the UAE, quoted the Attorney General as saying that he called on everyone residing in the country to abide by its laws and not to be led by such calls and actions, as they constitute crimes that have a serious impact on society and are severely punished for their perpetrators.
Swift (in)justice: life imprisonment for protesters
According to what was reported by the Emirates News Agency “WAM,” the court also ruled to deport all those convicted from the country after serving their sentences, and to confiscate the seized devices.
The Attorney General, Counselor Dr. Hamad Al Shamsi, had previously announced the start of an investigation into all incidents of gathering and rioting that occurred in several emirates in the country, and referring the accused to an urgent trial, after the investigations, which were supervised and conducted by a team of Public Prosecution members that included thirty investigators, confirmed the involvement of the accused in committing the crimes of gathering in a public place with the intent to riot, disturbing public security, calling for and inciting these gatherings and marches, and filming visual and audio clips of these acts and publishing them on the Internet,
After a number of the accused confessed and admitted to committing the "crimes" attributed to them. During the trial, which witnessed media coverage, the Public Prosecution demanded the maximum penalty be imposed on the accused.
WAM reported that the court heard the prosecution witness, who confirmed that the defendants had gathered and organized large numbers of marches in a number of streets in the country, in protest against decisions issued by the Bangladeshi government, which led to riots, disruption of public security, preventing and disrupting the implementation of laws and regulations, the interests of individuals and traffic, and endangering public and private property, and that the police had warned the demonstrators to disperse and leave, but they did not respond to this warning. For his part, the defense attorney, who was appointed by the court to defend the defendants, argued that there was no criminal intent behind this gathering, and that the evidence of the accusation was insufficient, demanding the acquittal of the defendants of what was attributed to them, but the court ruled to convict them; due to the availability of sufficient evidence of their commission of these crimes.
Posts
