This is the second and concluding part of Al-Ghamdi’s article about a Jeddah-based lawyer who was allegedly discriminated against by a judge on account of his Shiite background. According to the lawyer A.T. Al-Yami, the judge initially said he wouldn’t work with Al-Yami, and that the lawyer’s client should drop him. The judge later relented, says the lawyer, but asserted he would not work with the Shiite lawyer in future cases. In today’s column, Al-Ghamdi comments on the Justice Ministry’s response to the lawyer’s allegations.
I received the following comment from the Ministry of Justice’s media department:
“In reference to the article in Al-Watan titled ‘Judge Rejects an Ismaili Lawyer’ published on Wednesday, June 21, 2006, we would like to clarify to you and to the readers the situation regarding this issue. The lawyer A. T. Al-Yami visited the judge in the penal court in Jeddah regarding a case on Tuesday May 9, 2006. When he attended the hearing, the lawyer was given the deposition document to answer. The lawyer asked for an extension so that he could bring a written statement after signing the case’s endorsement.
On the following day, Wednesday May 10, 2006, the defendant (Al-Yami’s client) appeared in the court. He expressed his desire of not wanting Al-Yami to represent him anymore and that he — the defendant — would like to continue his case by himself.
On this basis we concluded some points that put the lawyer’s allegations in doubt:
— The extension allowing the lawyer to bring his written answer is documented in the deposition signed by the lawyer. This shows that the judge approved his appearing for the client.
— The next day, defendant himself requested that he be allowed to represent himself, thus releasing the lawyer.
— This request is legal in accordance with Article 140 of the penalty procedures regulations.
— The lawyer’s complaint that the judge forced him out of the courtroom because he was a Shiite contradicts the documents on record.
In the light of these points, it appeared that Al-Yami’s complaint wasn’t true. He tried to exaggerate things in reporting the incident as if it was a case of discrimination on the basis of his sect. The lawyer, who is fully aware of the regulations, ignored, intentionally or unintentionally, the rules and regulations and what our leaders emphasize regarding this issue.
Of course, the Ministry of Justice supervisors and other legal departments welcome objective criticism that serves the public interest, but such criticism should be free from emotions. And I hope that we have been able to clarify the matter.”
I must thank the Ministry of Justice for its explanation and I am sure that its rules and regulations don’t advocate sectarianism.
Yet there are individuals — and I stress the word “individuals” — who are not impressed and don’t understand the system, so they abuse their position. We must try to make those people in positions of judicial power realize the terrible consequences of their ignorance.
I felt that the ministry’s statement deserved to be published in its entirety, otherwise I would not have written again about this issue. Whatever the case may be, I’m happy with the result because I think that the judge regretted his approach to the lawyer based on his religious background — which strikes at the core of this issue.
— Qenan Al-Ghamdi is a Saudi writer based in Jeddah. He can be reached at: [email protected]
