A businessman involved in the Jeddah flood case would be barred from traveling abroad if he fails to appear before the Administrative Court in the Board of Grievances. The presiding judge threatened to put the businessman, who appeared before the court Sunday, on the travel ban list if he does not appear before the court as and when summoned. The businessman maintained that since he was not an accused in the case and only a complainant in the bribery case he was under no obligation to attend the court proceedings. However, the judge rejected the contention. There were two sessions of the court: one for a government official and the other for the businessman. The judge asked the businessman why he did not appear before the court on two earlier occasions. The businessman responded that he had appointed a representative to act on his behalf. The judge ruled that criminal cases require the presence of the accused, not his representative. The judge warned the businessman not to miss the court's next session and told him that if he fails to appear his name would be put on the travel ban list. During the court's first session Sunday, the governmental official attested his confession made before the court and the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution (BIP). However, the accused denied statements made during initial investigations saying that they were made under duress. He also denied the businessman's accusation that he received SR500,000 in kickbacks. But the businessman (second defendant) insisted that he paid SR500,000 to the first defendant in return for completing a certain transaction. “Seven years ago, me and my six business partners bought lands worth SR25 million in Obhur area. When we went to the notary public to register the sale deed, we discovered that the land was already owned by others,” the businessman said. The partners could not find out the identity of the other owner of the lands and the case remained unsolved for six years. The government official promised the businessman to facilitate the transaction accused if he paid him SR1 million. The second accused paid the first accused SR500,000 without the knowledge of his partners. The first accused successfully completed the transaction but the second accused discovered that the title deeds of the lands turned out to be legal and that the first accused delayed the transaction deliberately so that he gets the bribery. The businessman then decided not to pay the first accused the remaining SR500,000. After seven years, the businessman reported the bribery case to the court. The court will resume hearing in the case next month. __
