Student acquitted of carrying narcotics
By Jaber Al-Hamoud
KUWAIT CITY, Dec 9: The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the First Instance Court which acquitted a university student of possessing narcotics and driving under the influence of drugs.
Lawyer for the student, Attorney Inaam Haydar, argued in court that the arrest and search procedures taken by police, as well as the urine samples taken from her client, were illegal.
Haydar asserted the case has no legal merit once the evidence obtained illegally from her client is eliminated. She said the charges filed against the student should be dismissed due to failure of police to follow proper procedures.
Inmate acquitted:
The Criminal Court has acquitted a Central Jail inmate of smuggling narcotics (heroin) and brain stimulants with the intention to consume and sell these items.
The Public Prosecution charged the inmate of possessing heroin and the brain stimulant AMB-FUBINACA, in addition to smuggling prohibited substances into the jail which is in violation of the laws governing such institutions.
Lawyer for the inmate, Aattorney Zayd Al-Khabbaz, argued in court that the prosecution failed to present substantial evidence to support the allegations against his client.
Al-Khabbaz added the investigation conducted by the prosecution was insufficient and lacked merit, indicating that his client denied all charges from the beginning.
Top official sued:
Haydar
Attorneys AlHumeidi Al-Subeie and Nassar Al-Sarheed, representing a section head in the Private Education General Department at the Ministry of Education, filed five lawsuits against the undersecretary of the ministry in relation to the disciplinary measures taken against their client as such acts constitute abuse of authority.
One of the lawsuits is on the deduction of one day salary – a step that the plaintiff considers malicious since the investigation result failed to support the complaint against the plaintiff, in addition to attempts to hide violations committed by the department which were contained in documents presented to the court.
The second lawsuit is on the three-day salary deduction because the section head allegedly requested data from the principals of schools like the number of students to determine the student population considering the plaintiff has the authority to seek for such information.
The third lawsuit is on the administration’s persistence to abuse its power against the plaintiff in view of his desire to expose violations committed by the administration, while the fourth lawsuit is on the cancellation of the decision to cut one week salary and the fifth lawsuit is about the amendment of his 2017 appraisal report which was changed in mid-2018 from ‘excellent’ (97 percent) to ‘good’ without justification.