SADDAM DEFIANT – as witness refuses to testify

0
2243
Demonstrators with their placards as they assembled opposite the House of Commons before Monday’s vote on the ID cards bill
Demonstrators with their placards as they assembled opposite the House of Commons before Monday’s vote on the ID cards bill

The ‘trial’ of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein collapsed into into chaos minutes after it was resumed again yesterday.

After boycotting the ‘trial’, Saddam arrived saying he had been dragged to the hearing handcuffed and blindfolded by his US guards, and a key witness refused to testify.

The moment he appeared in the court, the Iraqi president shouted defiantly: ‘Down with the traitor, down with traitors, down with Bush. . . long live the ummah (Islamic nation)!’

Addressing new presiding judge, Halabja Kurd Rauf Rashid Abd al-Rahman, Saddam declared angrily: ‘I was forced into the courtroom.’

His half-brother and former intelligence chief   Barzan al-Tikriti frequently interrupted the session as guards kept pushing him down into his seat in the dock. He sat with his back to the judge.

Meanwhile, the first of three announced witnesses yesterday complained to the court and would not give evidence.

Former presidential chief of staff, Ahmed Khudayir, said: ‘I was brought here by force and I refuse to testify. I did not accept to be a witness.’

Khudayir also said he was blindfolded and handcuffed when he was brought to the court.

Saddam’s chief lawyer had told reporters earlier that all the defendants planned to continue boycotting the court after walking out during a stormy session on 29th January.

Khalil al-Dulaimi had said: ‘No international law can force people to attend trials.

‘Unless you change the law and turn it into the law of the jungle.’

Before yesterday’s court session, al-Dulaimi had told reporters that a number of conditions had to be met to ensure Saddam and his defence team returned, including replacing judge Rahman and prosecutor Jaafar al-Mussawi.

Al-Dulaimi also called for improved security for the defence counsel and continuous television transmission of the trial without periodic cuts to ensure that it was ‘transparent and fair’.

He warned the proceedings were dangerously adrift, saying: ‘They don’t know what to do, because for a court you need a judge, a prosecutor, defence and defendants – if two of them are not here, then there is no more court.’