HUDO Centre
22nd October 2016
Update (7) COURT TRIAL OF NISS/SUDAN AGAINST PASTORS AND ACTIVIST
The eights (8th) court proceedings started at 12:50 pm on 17th October
2016 and the hearing was before Justice Dr. Osama M. Abdalla, with the presence
of all parties under tight security arrangements. The prosecutor displayed
audio recordings, video exhibit and submitted a translated document for both.
Thereafter, the accusing panel exchange questions with the investigator. The
judge later adjourned court to 24thOctober 2016. Summary of the court session
The session was presided over by Justice Dr. Osama M. Abdalla at Khartoum
Centre Court, and all parties were present. The investigator counsel/
Abdurrahman displayed video and audio recordings which contained the following;
1) The video showed a meeting between the first, second and third defendant at
Ali Musa’s House in Alhaj Yousif. In the meeting the first defendant discussed
with Ali Musa about the way he was burnt and the third defendant was
interpreting. The video also shows the first defendant taking photos of the
burnt student.
2) In the audio recordings, the first and the fourth defendant (Abduelmoneim)
had a conversation at Afraa mall, in which Abduelmoneim explained how he
together with Ali Musa converted to Christianity from Islam. Thereafter, the
accusing panel exchanged with the investigator/ prosecutor through a series of
questions like;
Accusing panel; why did you interrogate the first (1st)
defendant? Investigator: Because his first visit to Sudan in 2012 through South
Sudan boarder with PPF group was illegal and they visited many areas in Nuba
Mountains and they met some people including rebels. During that visit, they
tried to confirm the allegation of oppression, torture and forced Islamisation
of Nuba people.
According to my interrogation with photo evidence, they provided logistical,
physical and moral support to SPLA-N. He also submitted a report about
allegations to international institutions particularly the head office of the
1st defendant’s organization.
That the 1st defendant’s second visit to Sudan, was in 2015 using tourism visa
while he particularly came to investigate the issue of the demolished churches
and the student who was burnt. Accusing panel: Is there any joint act between
the first defendant and Brad Philips?
Investigator: According to the interrogation of the first defendant I got to
know the name of Steve, Brad and Marshance.
The 1st defendant had also declared that, Brad is his colleague at two
organizations PPF and POM.
Accusing panel: While entering Sudan in 2012, what kind of vehicle did they
use? HUDO Centre Investigator: They entered with a vehicle designed as an
ambulance and it had South Sudan number plate. The first defendant is not shown
on that vehicle but, the photos and the dates can approve that he was in that
group.
Accusing panel: Where are the headquarters of the two organizations PPF and
POM?
Investigator: They are in USA.
Accusing panel: Is there any impact caused by the reports submitted by PPF and
POM?
Investigator: Yes, the reports clearly tarnished the image of Sudan
internationally in political, economic and military terms.
Accusing panel: who attended Addis Ababa conference?
Investigator: The first, second and third defendants.
Accusing panel: what about the student who was burnt?
Investigator: He was burnt during student demonstration by Molotov and he does
not know who threw it at him.
Accusing panel: what is the role of the third defendant?
Investigator: He presented a report in the conference citing that, there is a
church that was demolished at Alezba in Khartoum North.
Accusing panel: what is the role of the fourth defendant?
Investigator: He is the person who passed on the photos of the burned student
which were used in Addis Ababa conference by the second defendant. He is the
person who alleged that, the student converted to Christianity and he is the
same person who facilitated the meeting between them and the burned student. At
02:25 pm the investigator requested the judge to adjourn court session since he
was tired. The judge granted his request and adjourned court to 24th October 2016.
Notes;
· The security was tight
and keen. The defendants’ supporters, activist and their families were not
allowed in the courtroom. They were ordered to leave the court premises which
forced them to wait under the bridge adjacent to court.
· The defendants’ lawyers
are not in agreement or coordinated. The conflict is on who shall represent the
4th defendant and about the court procedure.
· The observers indicated
that the judge got irritated when the defendants’ lawyers disagreed.
· The first defendant’s
lawyer objected to the written translation and asked the judge for legal
explanation for the written paper.
· The defendants sitting
order on the bench had changed.
HUDO Centre Recommendations/ Appeal
§ HUDO urges the Sudan
court to conduct this trial fairly.
§ HUDO urges all the
diplomatic missions and embassies to continue attending the court sessions.
§ HUDO calls upon the
activists and defendants’ supporters to keep attending the trial.
§ HUDO calls on the
defendants’ lawyers to organize their efforts.
End For any further information please write to (hudo2009@gmail.com