The Abu Dhabi Federal Appeals Court ruled yesterday to convict 57 defendants of Bangladeshi nationality in the case known as the "Gathering Case." The court sentenced three defendants to life imprisonment for calling for and inciting protests aimed at pressuring their government. Meanwhile, 53 others received sentences of 10 years, and one defendant was given 11 years for entering the country illegally and participating in the gathering. The court also ordered the deportation of all convicted individuals from the country after serving their sentences, along with the confiscation of seized devices.
Previously, Attorney General Dr. Hamad Al Shamsi announced the initiation of investigations into all incidents of gathering and public disorder occurring in several emirates, leading to expedited trials for the defendants. Investigations, overseen by a team of thirty prosecutors, confirmed the defendants' involvement in committing public gathering crimes with the intent to incite disorder and disrupt public security, as well as calling for and inciting these gatherings and marches, filming audio-visual clips of such actions, and posting them online. Many defendants admitted to the crimes charged against them.
During the trial, which was covered by the media, the prosecution sought the maximum penalties for the defendants. The court heard a witness who confirmed that the defendants gathered and organized demonstrations in large numbers across various streets in the country in protest against decisions made by the Bangladeshi government, which resulted in riots, disturbances to public security, and disruption of laws and regulations, affecting individual interests and traffic, and endangering public and private properties. The police had urged the protesters to disperse, but they did not heed this warning.
On the other hand, the defense attorney, appointed by the court to represent the defendants, argued that there was no criminal intent behind the gathering and that the evidence against them was insufficient, calling for their acquittal. However, the court ruled for their conviction, finding sufficient evidence of the commission of the crimes.
