After two procedural sessions and a ban on live coverage, the trial of ousted president Hosni Mubarak is set to continue in earnest on 5 September, Gamal Essam El-Din reports The trial of deposed president Hosni Mubarak is set to shift into high gear on 5 September -- or after the end of the holy month of Ramadan and the feast of Fitr (fast-breaking). On Monday, the presiding chief judge Ahmed Rifaat concluded two procedural sessions held on 3 and 15 August by deciding to impose a ban on the live television coverage of the trial of Mubarak and his two sons Alaa and Gamal. Rifaat also decided to merge the two cases of Mubarak and his former interior minister Habib El-Adli, in which both are accused of conspiring to open fire on peaceful protesters during the 25 January Revolution's days. Mubarak is charged with issuing orders to El-Adli to kill protesters, and illegally profiteering from selling natural gas to Israel at below-market prices. Alaa and Gamal are accused of helping business tycoon Hussein Salem to own more than two million metres of land at cheap prices in return for a bribe of two villas at Sharm El-Sheikh. According to judge Rifaat, "we judges had high hopes that the trial would be held everyday to guarantee that the rights of both victims and defendants are well observed." Addressing the lawyers, Rifaat argued that "it is, however, quite impossible for a judge to listen to more than one hundred lawyers speaking and repeating requests at one time." "We judges wanted to hold the trial in an atmosphere of calmness, but this is quite impossible as long as it is aired live on television," said Rifaat. Analysts agree that when it is resumed on 5 September, the trial will be more serious and mainly focussed on reviewing the charges levelled against Mubarak, his two sons and former security chiefs. "I believe that the procedural issues such as listening to the requests of lawyers and reviewing the documents are now over and that it is now high time for the court's judges to deal with the charges themselves," said Ahmed Mekki, deputy chairman of the Court of Cassation, the highest judicial authority in Egypt. During Monday's session, the 83-year-old ex-president appeared frail and extremely weak. Mubarak was lying on a bed, wearing a blue suit in a courtroom cage. This was a big surprise, with a view to the fact that people under custody are obliged to wear white. Mubarak also replaced his precious Swiss watch with a medical ring. He exchanged smiles with his two sons and Alaa kissed him on his cheeks. Also on Monday, Mubarak's wife Suzanne paid a visit to her two sons Alaa and Gamal in the Tora prison south of Cairo. This is Suzanne's first meeting with her two sons after they were deported from the Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh to Tora prison on 13 April. Judge Rifaat's ban imposed on live television coverage of Mubarak's trial left the public opinion severely divided. On the side of political analysts and legal experts, Rifaat's decision was highly welcomed. Judge Mekki said "imposing live broadcast does not mean that the trials will not be covered by the media." "I think that judge Rifaat is keen that the trial remains transparent and that it is covered by the media, mainly newspapers, but without live television broadcast," said Mekki, arguing that "live broadcast is an obstacle against a fair trial because it does not provide a favourable atmosphere for the judge and rather instills chaos." Hafez Abu Seada, chairman of the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights (EHOR), agrees that "live coverage does not help the trial goes on in a smooth way." "But I think that the trial could be recorded and aired later and this will ensure that the public follow it closely," said Abu Seada. Nabil Abdel-Fattah, an Ahram political analyst, said he was appalled by the poor and uncivilsed performance of lawyers who fought for taking the floor in front of television cameras. "This caused chaos and negatively affected the trial," said Abdel-Fattah, arguing that "it is quite enough for newspapers and a brief television coverage of the trial's sessions to satisfy the public and ensure that full transparency is observed." Two Islamist parties -- the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and the Wasat Party -- and the leftist Tagammu Party declared full support for Rifaat's order. On the side of young political movements, Judge Rifaat's order was met with anger as the call for transparent and live broadcasts of the trial has been one of the crucial demands of protesters since the downfall of the Mubarak regime. Revolutionaries, such as Tarek El-Kholi of the 6 April Movement, argued that Rifaat's order cast doubts over the credibility and transparency of the trial. "Our greatest demand was that in order to be transparent and fair, the trial of Mubarak must be public and live on television," said El-Kholi, adding that "instead of imposing a ban on live coverage, the presiding judge Rifaat could have exercised his powers to impose self-discipline on lawyers." Al-Ahram analyst Abdel-Fattah believes that "the banning of live coverage could be necessary because the trial could go far to the extent of reviewing some political issues and secret national security matters." "You got crucial issues such as selling gas to Israel or the wide belief that some foreign elements such as Lebanon's Shia Party Hizbullah or Gaza Strip's Hamas Movement had a hand during the early heady days of the revolution, such as setting many of their prisoners free," said Abdel-Fattah, adding that "all of these issues can never be aired live on television." Prosecution authorities refused to give full transcript of the testimony of former chief of intelligence and vice president "because it contained several secret national security matters." Besides, all were surprised that Judge Rifaat mentioned nothing about Mubarak lawyer's request that Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, chairman of the ruling Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF); and former chief of General Intelligence and vice president Omar Suleiman, be summoned to testify before the court on the two charges levelled against Mubarak: ordering the killing of protesters and selling gas to Israel. Judge Mekki argued that Rifaat had to impose a ban on live coverage " in order to make it possible to listen to testimonies from key political and military fi----gures such as Tantawi and Suleiman." Judge Rifaat, however, showed big response to requests submitted by Mubarak's lawyer Farid El-Deeb. A case in point is that Rifaat allowed El-Deeb to get complete lists of the names of citizens who were shot dead or injured during the revolution's days from the Ministry of Health's Ambulance Authority. El-Deeb believes that many of these were mobs and hooligans who attacked police forces and torched buildings, and that it was necessary to open fire on them in self-defence and put an end to subversive acts and sabotage. Before the hearing started, supporters of Mubarak and anti-Mubarak protesters hurled stones at each other outside the courtroom.
