KUWAIT CITY, Oct 4: The Court of Appeals will deliberate Wednesday on the case against 70 Kuwaitis, including nine former lawmakers, accused of storming the National Assembly premises. Case files indicate the Public Prosecution cited misleading evidence, inadequate inferences, manipulation of documents, wrong application and distortion of the law as reasons for appealing the previous verdict on the acquittal of the accused. It then urged the court cancel the verdict of the lower court and impose harsh penalties on the accused. However, the defense team asked the court to listen to the testimonies of their witnesses.

Man acquitted: The Misdemeanor Court of First Instance acquitted a suspect of alleged fraudulent act involving KD 20,000. The plaintiff accused the defendant of luring him into a bogus business deal under the pretext that the money would be used to procure heavy duty equipment expected to yield about 20-25 percent in profit; thus, he issued a cheque of KD 20,000 to the defendant. Representing the defendant, Attorney Nawaf Al-Muhanadi argued that his client actually had a business deal with the plaintiff, so the case should not be heard at the Misdemeanor Court. He called for the case to be handled by a civil court that will find out whether or not the deal was executed. He stressed the case was filed to smear his client’s image based on vexatious allegations without tenable proof.

EPA overruled: The Administrative Court of Appeals canceled the decision of the Court of First Instance which dismissed the case filed by an engineer working at the Environment Public Authority. The court instead cancelled the decision taken by EPA to deduct her salary. According to the case file, the employee was surprised when part of her monthly salary was deducted under the claim that she did not carry out orders and violated Article 24 of the Civil Service law. During the court session, the plaintiff counsel Lawyer Mohammad Abbas requested the court to cancel the decision of the Court of First Instance, insisting that the decision violated the facts specified in the case file. He added that the investigation carried out on his client were not in line with the legal procedures.

By Jaber Al-Hamoud Al-Seyassah Staff