Citizen Ahmed Shawqi Muhammad Ahmed filed an official complaint, stating that he was subjected to a scam by the documentation judge in the capital, Aden, Muhammad al-Hajj Muhammad Saleh al-Bayhani, after he tricked him into selling a plot of land in the Ja’ula area for 160,000 Saudi riyals, claiming that it was private property. To the judge, it later became clear that it belonged to another citizen.

In the details of the complaint, which Ahmed Shawqi addressed to the Attorney General of the Republic, Judge Qaher Mustafa, to Brigadier General Abdul Rahman Abu Zaraa Al-Muharami, Vice President of the Transitional Council and member of the Presidential Leadership Council, and to all state officials, he explained that when he went to Housing to transfer ownership of the land, he discovered That the land had been transferred to another citizen before him, and that Judge Al-Hajj had no right to sell it. 

He added that the judge took advantage of his position to document lands for influential people, and received this land as a gift, while it was originally land belonging to the military survey and it is not permissible to dispose of it.

Shawqi confirmed that he resorted to various judicial authorities, including the Judicial Inspection, the Ministry of Justice, and the Court of Appeal, in search of justice, and he won the case after sessions that lasted several months. However, in the last session, Judge Ismail Abu Al-Ghaith recused himself from pronouncing the ruling, explaining that he felt embarrassed by the nature and sensitivity of the case.

Shawqi added that he tried to solve the problem amicably through the mediation of some officials, who advised Judge Al-Hajj to return the money. However, the judge argued that he spent the money on buying an apartment in the governor’s city and getting his son married, claiming that he no longer had the money.

Ahmed Shawqi concluded his complaint by appealing to the officials and competent authorities, through the media, to intervene and do justice to him, denouncing the injustice he was subjected to at the hands of the documentation judge, and demanding the return of his money.