The Moroccan was working as a driver for one of the defendants and he used to prepare tea for them while living in the Sarah rest house where they were arrested by security forces. The Moroccan refuted the claim that he gave his testimony under duress.

The six were allegedly part of 16 militants charged with collecting donations illegally and channeling the funds to organizations that enticed young Saudis to join fighting in violence-hit areas.

Defendant No. 1 refuted the charges against him by presenting an 11-page reply. He insisted that the accusations made by the Moroccan witness against them were contradictory and made under duress. But the witness retorted saying that he gave the remarks on his own will and without any outside pressure.

Defendant Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 also gave their replies in writing regarding the charges made by the witness against them.

Representatives of the Human Rights Commission, relatives of defendants and members of the local media attended the session. The court witnessed heated arguments between the defendants and the Moroccan witness. The judge had allowed the defendants to question the witness directly.

They asked the witness whether the charges against them were prepared by him or by investigators. Asked why he said their meetings in the rest house were secret, the witness replied it was because the meetings were not attended by others.

Defendant No. 1 acknowledged before the judge that the strategic planner among them had once asked them whether they wanted their goal to be peace or war. The judge then asked why he made such remarks if their goal was a peaceful one and questioned why they talked about violence when giving advice.

The defendant argued that their goal was peaceful and their activities were conducted in public, in contrast to other organizations. They also stressed that they had decided not to cooperate with Saudi renegades abroad including Saad Al-Faqeeh.

Defendant No. 2, a former judge, admitted that they had collected money in violation of the law, adding that they had presented an application to authorities to get permission for collecting donations. He later presented a three-page reply to the judge.

In his 10-page reply, Defendant No. 4 said he was unaware of the witness while Defendant No. 5 asked the witness many questions and alleged that he had fabricated the accusations against them.