Interview with "Professor Mojtaba Al-Sultani Al-Muslemin "Mohsen Borhani," Attorney at Law, with "Cafe Khabar" Reveals Interesting and Thought-Provoking Points

Read
3 minutes
-Thursday 2024/10/17 - 19:54
News Code:4103
Video file

"Professor Borhani" explicitly claims that the actions of seizure and sealing by "FARAJA" and other officers are not based on judicial orders, which is pure falsehood.

At the very least, what are the verbal orders from the head of the judiciary and their emphases that can be tracked with minimal research in cyberspace? And even assuming the impossibility of the truth of this claim, is the judiciary unable to prevent actions by the Minister of Interior and "FARAJA"?

"Professor Borhani" himself has requested in a tweet from the Prosecutor General of the Islamic Revolution Court in Tehran to address a complaint against the Minister of Interior in the government employees' prosecutor's office. However, "Professor" cleverly avoided answering the question here.

Wouldn't it be better if he himself stated what happened to that baseless complaint? No details are needed; the general outline suffices. Is that too difficult?

Is the story of this complaint similar to the complaint from "Fars News Agency," whose outcome was not informally communicated with noise?

"Professor Borhani" has filed a petition with the Administrative Justice Court regarding the ruling issued against his suspension at the university. What was the result of this complaint and petition in the appellate branch of the Administrative Justice Court (according to the new law of the Administrative Justice Court)? Can he not disclose this as well?

"Professor Borhani" claims with "FARAJA" and the Ministry of Interior's signed resolutions on the Headquarters of Hijab and Chastity that if he complains because the documents are classified, he will be sentenced to imprisonment. Many esteemed scholars in the seminary and universities find this statement unlikely; because as a concerned citizen with social responsibility and civil and legal activism, it is sufficient to reflect the general provisions and decisions of the Minister of Interior and the deputy commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces in "FARAJA" and the President of the National Security Council to the public panel of the Administrative Justice Court and demand their annulment without the need to provide any classified documents, thus avoiding concerns about their criminal consequences.

According to the order of the Deputy Head of the Administrative Justice Court in charge of public and specialized panels, pursuant to Note 2 of Article 20 of the Administrative Justice Court Law, records will be directly forwarded from the Ministry of Interior.

Additionally, "Professor," who refers to the old (but not repealed) law of the National Security Council and considers that council an advisory council, would be better served by requesting the annulment of its resolutions from the public panel of the Administrative Justice Court with the same legal interpretation and understanding. However, it seems he has made the same mistake that the former Minister of Intelligence, Communications, and Information Technology did, as I mentioned in a note to him (https://t.me/AbdiMedia/35006). It is sufficient to adhere to the powers granted by the Supreme National Security Council in implementing the latest part of Article 176 of the Constitution and with the approval of the Supreme Leader, or to file a complaint with the Administrative Justice Court during the bill exchange stage for the court to consider, and it will be included in the public or specialized panel's ruling.

"Professor Borhani," please also disclose the result of your personal complaint to the Administrative Justice Court.

However, the most interesting reaction from "Professor Borhani" was his response to the interviewer's question regarding the outcome of his trial and prosecution in the Special Clergy Court, which he evaded with cunning and a bitter laugh.

Truly, why does "Professor" not want to at least inform the general public about the initial ruling of the Special Clergy Court after all the noise and the release of parts of the prosecutor's indictment, etc.?

Is the dissemination of information and the shouts and criticisms selective?

These questions, along with other unanswered questions, remain.

Take less than a minute, register and share your opinion under this post.
Insulting or inciting messages will be deleted.
Sign Up