Tayeb Benabderrahmane testifies at the UN about his detention and torture in Qatar, exposing the intimidation tactics and human rights violations he endured
Qatar is accused of “intimidation and bribery” in a High Court case, where claimants allege threats and coercion to abandon a lawsuit on terrorism funding. One claimant experienced break-ins, warning notes, and threats, while another, Basel Hashwah, was detained in Oman, allegedly under Qatari orders.
This echoes the case of Tayeb Benabderrahmane, a Franco-Algerian consultant who reportedly faced torture, secret detention, and threats in Qatar. Both cases suggest a pattern of using intimidation to silence individuals and derail justice.
Qatar has been accused of waging a “campaign of intimidation and apparent bribery” to derail a High Court case in which the country is accused of funding terrorism.
A judge heard on Thursday how one of the claimants had his car and home broken into, with a warning note left telling him to “be careful”.
Others have allegedly received threatening phone calls and are now in hiding with their families.
Meanwhile, Basel Hashwah, a US citizen and the only non-anonymous claimant, has been arrested and detained in Oman, allegedly on the orders of Qatar, the court heard.
They are among nine claimants originally from Syria who say they lost family members, were tortured and had property and businesses destroyed at the hands of the Al-Nusra Front terrorist organisation during the Syrian civil war.
They are now bringing a writ worth tens of millions against various Qatari entities whom they say assisted the Gulf state in illegally financing the group.
The defendants are Qatar National Bank, the Doha Bank, a Lebanese businessman called Christian Comair, and Abdulhadi Mana Al-Hajri, who is the brother-in-law of the Emir of Qatar.
All categorically deny funding terrorism, as well as having any knowledge of or involvement in the alleged intimidation and bribery.
However, Sir Max Hill KC, representing the claimants, said: “There is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice at work at this time.
“If that conspiracy were to work it would work to the benefit of all the defendants in these proceedings.”
Qatar is accused of funding terrorism in a High Court case – Gavin Hellier
A witness statement from Jonathan Ivinson, the Syrian claimants’ solicitor, was presented to the court in which he claimed that Qatari negotiators had previously offered to settle the case for $40 million, before they were replaced.
He said one of the claimants had had his car broken into in Paris while meeting with him for legal advice, and that papers and a laptop were also stolen.
Mr Ivinson said a different client had been contacted “by the security services of the State of Qatar” and told that $2 million was available if he was able to convince his fellow claimants to abandon the proceedings.
The witness statement claimed that Mr Hashwah’s mental health had deteriorated while he was held in Oman and that he could not give confidential instructions to his legal team because of the risk they would be intercepted directly by Qatar, or by the Omani authorities and passed to Qatar.
‘Disturbing events’
Sir Max said on Thursday: “These are no ordinary proceedings.
“The events that have taken place and are still taking place are ones that we invite the court to find disturbing, indeed shocking.”
Andrew Scott KC, acting for Mr Al-Hajri, said the allegations were little more than an “eleventh-hour attempt to distract the court” from the fact that they were required to make a cost security payment, an interim payment to the defendants’ solicitors in case they lost, the deadline for which they had missed several times.
He described the allegations as “attempts to throw mud”.
“The claimants have absolutely no evidence to support these grave allegations.”
Ben Jaffey KC said Mr Hashwah had been detained because he had signed a bad cheque, which is a criminal offence in Qatar, which cooperates with Oman.
Sir Max alleged that this was a deliberate attempt to put pressure on the claimant.
The court was not making determinations on the substantive allegations of funding terrorism, nor of intimidation and bribery.
Master Richard Armstrong ordered the claimants to make the cost security payments by Oct 10, despite an application to adjourn, or he would throw out the entire claim.
He also ordered them to pay 50 per cent of the costs for the hearing, within 15 days, which he described as “eye-watering”.
Source : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/26/syria-qatar-derail-high-court-intimidate-victims-terror/
