Ahmad Abdullah Saudi Gazette JEDDAH – The trial for two people accused of inciting dissent and insulting government officials and public figures resumed in the district court in Riyadh on Saturday. The two defendants responded to charges leveled against them by the public prosecutor through written submissions presented to the court. The charges included spreading sedition, inciting people to demonstrate in public squares, weakening the bond between the state and citizens, disrupting the progress of the country's development and falsely claiming that 30,000 people had been held in the General Intelligence prisons. The first defendant denied that they made calls for divesting the country's ruler. He said they were criticizing state officials for their negligence and not the ruler. He said the prosecutor was confused when he charged them with disobedience to the ruler and described them as Kharijites. He said many of the charges leveled by the prosecutor have nothing to do with the case and most of them ought to be dropped because there was no evidence. As for making allegations of human rights violations in the General Intelligence prisons, the two defendants requested the judge to allow them to produce a witness at the next hearing. They said the court should ask the Ministry of Interior for lists of inmates who are served meals in the prisons. The judge pointed out that the first defendant was simply repeating his claim that the prosecuted violated the rules. “Despite your claim, it is you who violated the rules because you requested that the court proceedings should not be publicized and then you publicized them,” the judge said. The second defendant said the charges against him referred to his call for rule by consultation, which is rule by “Shoura”. As for calling for demonstrations, he said he considered demonstrations as peaceful form of protest. He asked the prosecutor to provide material evidence to prove the charges against him. The two defendants said all their activities came under what is permissible, as the charges against them lacked material evidence and Shariah basis. They demanded that a fact-finding committee be formed to investigate human rights violations in prisons. The judge said the replies by the two defendants were mostly out of context and were not related to the case.
