At the trial in Jeddah, Witness No. 1 Al-Hasan Al-Husain Al-Sadeq was identified as the Moroccan driver of Defendant No. 7, who owned the rest house called “Sarah.”

Unlike in past hearings, the judge refused to expel the media from the court hall even though some defendants objected to their presence.The courtroom was filled with relatives of the defendants and reporters.

One of the defendants was carried on a wheelchair to the elevated courtroom by security men.

“I went to the rest house as instructed by my employer, Defendant No.7, to serve tea and coffee to three men, other defendants in the case. Defendant No. 6 was speaking and I heard that they were preparing a memo and one of the men was refusing to record his name on it. I sensed that in their conversations there was a plot against the government,” Al-Husain said in his recorded statement, which he told the court was made without any external pressure.

He added that sometimes meetings were held in locked rooms. The witness added that he served tea and coffee to them and he once saw wads of paper in front of each one of them. One of them had a laptop with a connection to a printer. His employer took their cell phones to be kept in a shelf in the reception.

Al-Husain said one day Defendant No. 1 was also present in a meeting. The defendant came with his wife and the witness heard the man saying that there was nothing to fear about her. That meeting was also conducted in secret. There was a projector and a 1.5 meter screen. The prime defendant kept talking about everything that appeared on the screen. An Algerian was also present in the meeting, the witness said.

In the meeting Defendant No. 2 demanded changing the headline of the memo because it would provoke the authorities, he said.

The witness added that while they were discussing the memo one of the defendants mentioned the word “party”, the word started an argument between the prime defendant and Defendant No. 5.

“The first defendant said he wanted to set up a political party while the other said it would not be successful so long as the government did not change or reforms in the government was not brought about. The defendants were planning to set up a party named the ‘People’s National Political Grouping,’” the witness said.

He added that that Defendant No. 7 proposed at the end of the meeting that the next meeting would be convened in a hotel overlooking the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah.

He said his boss asked him in one of the meetings to collect all the mobile phones of the participants and keep them in another room. “After that I was scared that I would be viewed as one of them particularly as the meetings were held without the permission of the government.”

The judge asked the defendants to respond to the witness’ statement. All defendants except No. 3 said they needed time to give a written reply to the statement. No. 3 said his reply was included in his earlier response to charges made by the public prosecutor.

Defendant No. 7 said Al-Sadeq was a trustworthy man and added that he neither endorsed nor denied his statement. He said an earlier statement was enough as a reply to the witness’s testimony.

The other nine witnesses were officers of the general prison where the accused were detained. They testified against Defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 6.

One of them said he heard the key defendant remarking that if the king and the Interior Minister were Muslims they would have arraigned him before Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehaidan, the then-president of the Supreme Judiciary Council, in line with the Holy Qur'an.

The key accused, who had his defense lawyer Mujahid Al-Sawaf with him, said, “The witness is hostile to me and so I reject every statement of his. His statement is inaccurate.

“I believe the king and interior minister are believers in Islam. I stress that I did not say what the witness has accused me of. I must have said the king and the minister are Muslims and that I demanded from them to send me to Sheikh Al-Lehaidan for my trial.”

He added that he had written to the Sheikh complaining about the injustice in jail. He said his words only expressed his respect and faith in the legal system and rulers.

The third witness was the warden of the section where the key accused was detained. He said one of the detainees was believed to have said that the government was failing and spoke about “an army of Islam.”

However, he said he did not hear the words directly spoken by the defendant. The third witness also said in his statement that he once heard Defendant No. 3 saying that the king was cajoling Jews and Americans.

However, Defendant No. 3 denied the witness’ statement as a pack of lies.

The fourth, fifth, sixth and eight witnesses all accused Defendant No. 6 of asking whether a soldier would be present during his visiting time. He was told that this would be the case as per regulations. He was then alleged to have said that he would inform his relatives of this decision so they could post it on the Internet and media. He was also alleged to have said that he was not concerned with anyone but the king and “woe to the rest.”

Defendant No. 6 said the witnesses were hostile to him and he denied the accusations.

He also denied an accusation from Witness No. 7, a jail warden, where he was alleged to have said that the Interior Minister was a swindler and he was not afraid of the trial.

Witness No. 9 alleged that when he stopped Defendant No. 3 from talking on the phone for more than 15 minutes he was told that the administration is “evil.”

“Then I told him that I and my government are in the service of the religion and the nation. Then the defendant said you are right about the nation but not the religion,” he said.

“He prayed to Almighty Allah to grant lawful work and food to me and to stop me doing the job I am doing now.”

The defendant denied the accusation.