Man gets 10-year jail, Dhs100,000 fine for possessing and abusing drugs in Dubai
Dubai Criminal Court sentenced an African to 10 years in jail to be followed by deportation and fined him Dhs100,000 after being caught red-handed in possession of approximately 80 grams of Marijuana and other narcotics that he had purchased from unknown dealer, using crypto-currency.
The court also ordered that the seized narcotics be confiscated.
The case dated back to December last year when Dubai Police received a tip-off that the accused was abusing narcotics and possessing a quantity of the same in Al Khawaneej area.
A team of detectives was formed to track him down, and after obtaining permission from Dubai Public Prosecution, the accused was monitored and arrested.
A policeman stated in the interrogations that the accused was in an abnormal state when he was arrested but no smell of alcohol was emanating from him.
This necessitated a precautionary search to be conducted, as a result of which he was found in possession of rolls containing items that were suspected to be narcotics, he said, adding that the seized items, along with a urine sample from the accused, were transferred to Dubai Police's forensic laboratory.
The forensic laboratory report indicated that the seized items consisted of a dried herbal material containing marijuana weighing approximately 80 grams and traces of the same material were detected on two electronic scales, all of which fall under prohibited materials according to table no. 1 of the federal decree-law no. 3 for 2021 regarding combating narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The urine sample analysis also showed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, the active ingredient in hashish, which is included among the prohibited psychotropic substances in table no. 5 of the same law, constituting evidence that the accused had used hashish or marijuana.
On interrogation, the accused admitted that he possessed and was abusing the seized items, which he said he had bought for personal use from an unknown dealer and remitted the price to him using digital currencies.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trade unions from 36 countries protest against Saudi Arabia's treatment of migrant workers
Trade unions from 36 countries have filed a complaint with the International Labour Organization (ILO) over the treatment of migrant labourers in Saudi Arabia, The Guardian has reported. The joint submission called for a 'commission of inquiry' into labour rights in the kingdom - one of the most important tools available to the UN agency. 'This is a call for immediate action towards genuine, inclusive and collaborative reform,' said Luc Triangle, the secretary-general of the International Trade Union Confederation. 'We cannot tolerate another death of a migrant worker in Saudi Arabia. We cannot remain silent while migrant workers, especially construction and domestic workers, continue to face fundamental rights violations. This has to stop now.' The complaint comes as development and construction ramp up in Saudi Arabia ahead of its hosting the 2034 Fifa World Cup. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters This week, the kingdom signed a cooperation agreement with the ILO on the sidelines of its annual conference in Geneva. Under the agreement, which initially lasts for two years, Riyadh is expected to align its labour laws with international standards. The agreement reportedly includes measures to support fair recruitment, make it easier for labourers to switch jobs, introduce a minimum wage and include migrant workers on workers' representative committees. It also includes commitments to improve compensation for workers who are injured or killed. However, trade unionists from several delegations think the reforms did not go far enough. Unions from the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia and 13 African countries were among those to sign the complaint, which was fiercely opposed by the Saudis. 'Africans go to Saudi Arabia looking for life but come back in coffins,' said Omar Osman, the general secretary of the Federation of Somali Trade Unions and one of the signatories. The complaint, seen by The Guardian, lists several cases of alleged forced labour, human trafficking, wage theft, and sexual and physical abuse of migrant labourers. Migrant worker deaths Last month, a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) found that scores of migrant workers in Saudi Arabia had died in horrific, avoidable workplace incidents - including falls from buildings, electrocutions and decapitations. Saudi Arabia relies heavily on foreign labour to power its economy. Of a population of around 34 million, over 13 million are migrants, primarily from South and Southeast Asia and parts of Africa, according to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. These workers dominate sectors such as construction, domestic work, sanitation and hospitality - often performing some of the most dangerous and low-paid jobs in the country. 'Electrocuted, decapitated': Migrant worker deaths in Saudi Arabia revealed in HRW report Read More » Despite existing Saudi laws mandating occupational safety measures and employer accountability, the HRW report revealed systemic failures in protecting workers, investigating deaths and ensuring compensation. The report also documented disturbing patterns of deaths being misclassified as 'natural causes', even in cases where the fatal injuries occurred on worksites. HRW interviewed the families of 31 deceased workers, mostly from Bangladesh, India and Nepal, who died in Saudi Arabia between the ages of 23 and 52. In several cases, families reported they were left in the dark about the cause and circumstances of their relatives' deaths. Employers often delayed or refused to repatriate remains and personal belongings and, in some cases, pressured families to accept burial in Saudi Arabia in exchange for modest financial compensation. In one case, the son of a Bangladeshi man who died of electrocution said the employer made compensation conditional on agreeing to bury his father in Saudi Arabia. The family refused and had to borrow over $4,000 to repatriate the body, only to receive less compensation than their incurred debt. Most migrant workers enter Saudi Arabia under the kafala sponsorship system, which legally binds a worker's immigration status to a specific employer. Despite recent reforms that allowed some workers to change jobs without employer consent, many are still vulnerable to exploitation, forced labour, wage theft and harsh working conditions. A New York Times report in March found that at least 274 Kenyan workers, most of whom were women, had died in Saudi Arabia over the past five years despite being a young workforce in non-dangerous jobs. Large numbers of Ugandan workers had also died in the Gulf kingdom during that time. Every year, thousands of Ugandan and Kenyan women travel to Saudi Arabia to take up domestic jobs such as housekeepers and nannies. Many return with stories of unpaid wages, detention, beatings, starvation and sexual assault. Others return in coffins. Among those who died, autopsies often revealed evidence of trauma such as burns and electric shocks. However, Saudi authorities recorded the deaths as natural causes.
Middle East Eye
20 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
'We don't want them': Trump issues latest iteration of controversial travel ban
US President Donald Trump instituted a long-anticipated travel ban on Thursday, prohibiting US entry to citizens from 12 countries and restricting the entry of citizens from seven others. Trump's proclamation 'fully' restricts nationals from largely African and Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Myanmar from entering the US. It also partially restricts nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. In a video he released on social media on Thursday, Trump said the Colorado attack had 'underscored the extreme dangers posed by foreign nationals who are not properly vetted'. The suspect in the attack is alleged to be an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa and previously lived in Kuwait. Rumors had been circulating for months about what countries would be on the list after Trump signed an executive order on 20 January and gave the US State Department 60 days to identify countries for which 'vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries'. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters According to the Trump administration, the ban is designed to 'protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes'. How does the ban work? The order goes into effect at midnight on 9 June, and both the full and partial bans apply to foreign nationals from the designated countries who are outside the country on 9 June and do not have a valid visa as of that day. The proclamation outlines that no visas issued before that date will be revoked. Citizens from countries facing a complete ban will not be issued any non-immigrant or immigrant visas. Countries facing a partial restriction will see the suspension of entry of all immigrants and the following temporary visas: B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas. The order has made room for exceptions including the following: any lawful permanent resident of the United States; dual nationals; diplomats travelling on valid non-immigrant visas; athletes or members of an athletic team and immediate relatives; travelling for the World Cup, the Olympics or other major sporting event; immediate family immigrant visas; adoptions; Afghan special immigrant visas; special immigrant visas for United States government employees; immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran. 'Unecessary and ideologically motivated' Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Muslim civil rights organisation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement released on Wednesday that Trump's new travel ban 'is overbroad, unnecessary and ideologically motivated'. 'Are they troublemakers?': Trump questions why Harvard has so many international students Read More » He criticised the targeting of mostly Muslim and African nations and said it raised 'the specter of more vague free speech restrictions'. "Automatically banning students, workers, tourists, and other citizens of these targeted nations from coming to the United States will not make our nation safer." He added that the screening tests being undertaken by the US government were "vague" and could easily be abused to ban immigrants based on religion or political activism. He said the new travel ban risks separating families, deprives students of educational opportunities, blocks patients from accessing unique medical treatment, and would create a chilling effect on travellers. 'Automatically banning anyone based on their nationality or vague allegations of 'hostile attitudes' to American culture or policies undermines our nation's values,' he added. World reacts Like Trump's controversial tariffs, the latest iteration of the travel ban has continued to ruffle feathers and wear leaders down. Venezuela's interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, lambasted the Trump administration as 'bad people' on state television, saying 'they are supremacists who think they own the world and persecute our people for no reason". "The truth is being in the United States is a big risk for anybody, not just for Venezuelans," he added. Meanwhile, the ban prompted Chad's president, Mahamat Deby, to issue a reciprocal ban on US citizens. In a statement, he said, 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and pride'. Republic of Congo government spokesman Thierry Moungalla told a news conference he thought it was 'a misunderstanding'. 'Congo is not a terrorist country, does not harbour any terrorists, is not known to have a terrorist inclination,' he said. The Somali ambassador to the US, Dahir Hassan Abdi, took a more resigned tone. He said in a statement that Mogadishu 'values its longstanding relationship with the United States. [Somalia] stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised'. Trump's history with travel bans Six of the countries on the new list were on different iterations of Trump's 2017 predominantly Muslim travel ban list, and continue to remain on the banned list. These countries include Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Venezuela. Trump upset national sensibilities when he issued a "Muslim" travel ban within a week of taking office during his first term in January 2017. The countries on his original list were seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The order also indefinitely suspended the entry of Syrian refugees This order affected individuals regardless of their immigration status, including green card holders and those with employment-based visas. Travellers with valid visas and permanent residency were denied entry. Following large-scale protests and chaos at airports, courts pushed back on the ban, leading to the first ban being blocked by a temporary restraining order in Washington v. Trump in February 2017. US judge blocks Trump order banning foreign students at Harvard University Read More » Three more iterations of the ban followed, leading to numerous lawsuits being filed in federal court against the Trump administration. One of the most successful lawsuits was Trump v Hawaii, a lawsuit on behalf of the state of Hawaii, where the Muslim Association of Hawaii, Dr Ismail Elshikh, and two John Doe plaintiffs challenged the various iterations of the ban. After Trump issued the second iteration of the ban in March 2017, the Hawaii district court issued a nationwide injunction against the second version of the ban, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 12 June 2017. The Court prohibited the government from enforcing the ban against foreign nationals who possess a 'bona fide relationship' with a person or entity in the US. But the government interpreted that ruling narrowly, issuing new guidance that would still ban 'grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other 'extended' family members' on the theory that they are not 'close' family. In July 2017, the Hawaii district court ruled that this definition 'represents the antithesis of common sense' and prevented the government from enforcing it. After a government appeal, the Ninth Circuit largely left the district court's order relating to travel, in place, while staying part of the order relating to refugees. Trump issued a third iteration of the ban in September 2017, and the lawsuit returned to the Hawaii district court. The court ruled that it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court permitted Muslim Ban 3.0 to go into effect as appeals progressed. In January 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and eventually reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction after a 5–4 decision. The third iteration of the ban imposed full visa restrictions on citizens from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim. These countries included Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. Iranian nationals were allowed to enter under valid student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) visas, although such individuals were subject to 'enhanced screening and vetting requirements'. In January 2020, a fourth travel ban was instituted and included additional countries such as Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania, which restricted applications to immigrants from those countries but did not restrict entry by non-immigrants.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Al Ain court obligates a man to pay 51,430 for causing traffic accident
The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a person to pay Dhs51,430 plus a fine of Dhs5,000 as a compensation to another man for damaging two vehicles while driving. Earlier, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in which he requested that he be obligated to pay Dhs51,430, which was the cost of repair for his damaged car plus Dhs75,000 as the rental of a car of the same type that he had to rent while his car was under repair. He also requested the court to obligate the defendant to pay the incurred charges, expenses and lawyer's fees. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant caused damage to his vehicle, noting that the defendant was convicted of the charge in a lawsuit that had already been filed against. In support of his lawsuit, the plaintiff attached to his docket a copy of the traffic accident report and a copy of the supervising judge's decision to appoint a technical expert to investigate the issue and assess the cost of repair of the plaintiff's vehicle. The technical expert decided that the total repair costs of Dhs51,430 as incurred by the plaintiff were reasonable and in line with the extent of the damages resulting from the accident, assuming that he had bought original spare parts. As for the plaintiff's request for Dhs75,000 as a compensation for not being able to use his car for approximately 6 months from the date of the accident until the date of the actual repair of the car, the court estimated that a Dhs5,000 compensation for the material harms caused to the plaintiff due to the defendant's error would be sufficient.
