had no relation, nor prior acquaintance of each other, nor they had a legitimate relationship. [He claims]
she joined him because she wanted a ride – yet he failed to mention the destination.
The third accused however, states that she does not know the first accused, but she has a relationship
with the wife of the second accused, and that she went to his house because he owned her “ money.”
She claims afterwards that she offered to give him a ride with the accused to a house [somewhere] and I
failed to understand [the following:] whether she meant the house of the first accused, whom she
claimed that she did not know the name of – his name is Jameel Riyadh and not Ali – or whether she did
not know the name of the second accused and failed to distinguish between them, due to the absence
of a relationship between her and any of the accused, and that things just happened that way…..[sic]
The accused entered the house with her head down (bowed) and she was wearing a [traditional] Toab
garment, but when she left she was wearing modern clothes, meaning that she took off her Toab. A
strange woman, with strange men at night, and in a bachelor’s home, where his friend the second
accused is visiting him in state of intoxication, as the prosecuting witnesses have testified – what
conclusion could be drawn from this?
Article 154/2 defines a place of prostitution as: any place prepared for the meeting of men and women,
or men and women who do not share a marital relationship or family ties, and in circumstances that are
likely to encourage sexual acts.
The house occupied by the first accused is frequented by visiting girls, to the point, as the witnesses
have testified, that the accused was [ordered] to sign a Pledge with the local Public committee [in the
neighborhood]. And regardless of the legal value of such Pledge, it is clear that the occupants of the
neighborhood have had enough of the acts performed inside the house, which is situated in the middle
of a neighborhood, occupied by dignified families, meaning that there were suspicious activities taking
place inside the house in the neighborhood.
The manner in which the third accused has entered the house and remained inside it after taking off her
Toab, staying with the bachelors in that state, could only be explained as an act of sexual behavior, no
matter how little that performed sexual act was.
The behavior of the first accused who could only be described as facilitating immoral acts in the least,
and that it endangers the community and destroys its moral values. As such, an accused could not be
allowed such behavior, under the pretext that he was entertaining and hosting his guests which is on the
face of it is a good word, because it implies generosity, but in the essence of it, is the intention of
wrongdoing and evil.
Therefore, I am of the opinion of indicting the first accused under article 155/1 of the criminal act and
that he should be penalized with 50 whip lashes, and imprisonment for a period of three months,
instead of three years. Also, to cancel convicting him under article 154 of the criminal code, and to
uphold the judgment of the court of the first instance that indicted the second and third accused; their
penalty shall be under article 154, to be subjected to 50 whip lashes each, and to reject the judgment of
imprisonment of the third accused, while supporting the [Islamic] Hadd Penalty for the second accused.
31/1/1991
Taj Alsir Said Ahmed
Judge of the Appeal Court and member of the bench