UK High Court, in an order passed on October 6, 2021 said, ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum interfered with British justice by ordering the hacking of phone of his ex-wife Princess Haya of Jordan as well as her solicitors Baroness Fiona Shackleton QC, Nick Manners and others who were contacting Princess Haya and her attorneys, such as David Haigh and Tiina Jauhiainen. Princess Haya said the discovery had made her feel “hunted and haunted” while Sheikh Mohammed denied any knowledge of the hacking.
He said the court’s findings were based on evidence that was not disclosed to him, and that they were “made in a manner which was unfair”.
It may be mentioned here that, Prince Haya of Jordan fled Dubai in 2018 stealing valuables worth hundreds of millions of dollars, while she was later caught of having illicit romantic and sexual relations with her British bodyguard named Russel Flowers.
According to a source, Princess Haya has earlier submitted so-called evidence with the British High Court centering interception of her phones as well as phone of her attorneys and other contacts. Earlier, Princess Haya had fooled the British High Court with numerous lies.
Earlier the British Supreme Court had issued a fact-finding judgement (Case No: FD19P00246, FD19P00380, FD19F05020, FD19F00064) on the legal battle between Jordanian Princess Haya bint al Hussein and her husband Sheikh Mohammad Rashid al-Maktoum. This fact-finding document is given in the course of ongoing proceedings relating to the welfare of two children. The children are Sheikha Al Jalila bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (“Jalila”), who was born 2 December 2007 and now aged 12 years, and Sheikh Zayed bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (“Zayed”), born 7 January 2012, now aged 7 years.
According to the judgement, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and Princess Haya bint Al Hussein married on April 10, 2004. It was not an arranged marriage as Maktoum and Haya were dating for an unknown period. It said, Haya is the second “official wife” of Maktoum, who, in addition, has a number of “unofficial” wives. These two children are the two youngest of Dubai ruler’s 25 children.
On 15 April 2019 Princess Haya travelled to England with her children, Jalila and Zayed. Although it was normal for the children and the Haya to visit England, she made it clear soon after arrival that she and the children would not be returning to Dubai, meaning, she had left Dubai with the intention to taking refuge in the United Kingdom.
On 14 May 2019 the father commenced proceedings in England and Wales under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeking orders for the children to be returned to the Emirate of Dubai.
Princess Haya initially contested the court’s jurisdiction by asserting that she enjoyed diplomatic immunity, it being the case that shortly after her arrival in England in April 2019 the government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan appointed her to the post of First Secretary at the Jordanian Embassy in London.
In a statement made on 16 July 2019 Haya abandoned her claim to diplomatic immunity with respect to these proceedings. She did so, in part, she asserts, as a result of extreme pressure, diplomatic and otherwise, brought to bear on her by Sheikh Maktoum. Further, Princess Haya explained that she now needed to rely upon the jurisdiction of this court to protect herself and the children. She therefore issued applications for the children to be made Wards of Court, and for a forced marriage protection order with respect to her daughter Jalila, and for a non-molestation order for her own protection.
Following a hearing in July 2019, the court confirmed the wardship proceedings, made both children Wards of Court and directed that they be represented by a guardian appointed from the CAFCASS High Court team.
An interim forced marriage protection order and interim non-molestation injunctions were made together with conventional orders prohibiting the children’s removal from the jurisdiction of England and Wales and from their mother’s care. The court maintained the hope that interim contact could be established between the children and their father. However, although discussion continued between the parties, arrangements which were, on the one hand, considered sufficiently secure by Haya and the court, whilst, on the other hand, being acceptable to Sheikh Maktoum, proved, and have continued to prove, difficult to identify.
Sheikh Maktoum, as the ruler of the State of Dubai and as the Head of the Government of the UAE, claimed and acknowledges that his position attracts certain immunities. Of particular relevance to the fact-finding process is the claim, disputed by Haya, that he cannot be required to attend the court to give oral evidence.
The Dubai ruler also acknowledges that his position in international law renders him immune from the ordinary processes by which an order of the court might be enforced were he to be found to be in breach of such an order. Part of Maktoum’s case before the court is to offer reassurance by means of waivers made both personally and on behalf of the UAE, and “assurances” given formally to the court and to the government of the United Kingdom, that any such immunity should not compromise the court’s ability to trust him to abide by any requirements relating to the security of the children or otherwise that the court may make as a condition upon any contact arrangements.
At a hearing on 8 October 2019 Maktoum substantially revised his position by no longer pursuing his application for the children to be returned to Dubai. He agreed that the children would now continue to live with their mother, Princess Haya and be based with her in England. He accepted the continuing jurisdiction of the court in England and Wales to make long-term determinations as to the children’s welfare. Whilst issues remained to be clarified between the parents regarding the children’s healthcare and education, Maktoum’s primary focus had become, as it remains, to re-establish and progressively develop his relationship with his two children through contact.
In the court, Princess Haya had brought a number of witnesses to support her allegations against Sheikh Maktoum. One of the witnesses was Tiina Jauhiainen, a very controversial individual, who has been caught for being misleading the media through false statements.
A scammer Tiina Jauhiainen, who has been making money by pretending to be a defender of Sheikha Latifa has also fooled BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire.
In the interview Tiina said, “They blindfolded me, handcuffed me, they told me they were taking me to a place where al-Qaeda are held, which was obviously scary,” she said. “They threatened to shoot my brains out.”
When the attention of Herve Jaubert, a French naval officer was drawn to the comment of Tiina, he outrightly trashed it saying, she was a liar.
It may be mentioned here that, in her testimony to the British High Court, Tiina Jauhiainen had falsely claimed that Sheikha Latifa bint al Maktoum had contacted a man named David Haigh, one of the scamming cohorts of Tiina from the vessel immediately before Latifa was forcibly taken back to Dubai by the Dubai navy with the collaboration of Indian forces.
It was reported in the media that Indian authorities had helped Sheikh Maktoum in abducting Sheikha Latifa from an American-flag-carrier vessel and sending her back to Dubai for getting Christian Michel extradited from the United Arab Emirates.
Lies of Princess Haya
Part of the fact-finding process has focused upon two of the Maktoum’s older children, Sheikha Shamsa and Sheikha Latifa. Shamsa was born in 1981 and is now aged 38. Latifa was born in 1984 and is now aged 35. They are full sisters. They have an older sister and a younger brother.
The British court in its judgement said, “the evidence relating to 2002 [an attempt of fleeing Dubai via Oman] and the years following comes entirely from Latifa. The primary source is a one-hour video recording made by Latifa in February 2018. The second source is the evidence of Tiina Jauhiainen who has given sworn evidence confirming that, over the course of their friendship from around 2016 onwards, Latifa confided in her and gave an account of the events of 2002 and following; that account is effectively the same as the one given by Latifa in the video.
“There is no other evidence relating to Latifa’s alleged attempt to escape in 2002 and her subsequent allegations of ill treatment and deprivation of liberty. Evaluation of the video account, and an assessment of the weight that may be afforded to it, is therefore crucial in determining whether or not any of these allegations is established on the balance of probability”.
In her statement on Sheikha Latifa issue, Princess Haya said, In February 2018 and following a second attempt to run away from her family, Sheikha Latifa was held by her father against her will and subject to inhumane and degrading treatment. In particular:
Latifa was forcibly returned to Dubai from international waters on 4 March 2018. That forcible return involved
Armed Indian coastguard forces boarding and commandeering the boat upon which Latifa was travelling in international waters, 20 nautical miles off the coast of India;
Threats to kill made by those officials to Latifa, Tiina Jauhiainen and those others she was travelling with;
Assaults upon Herve Jaubert, Tiina Jauhiainen and other crew members;
The forcible return of Latifa to Dubai;
The handing over of the other occupants on board the vessel to the UAE authorities who continued to mistreat them.
Tiina Jauhiainen was taken to jail in Dubai. She was detained, mistreated, interrogated and denied any legal representation, she was threatened with the death penalty;
Tiina Jauhiainen was forced to sign a false statement; she was threatened that the father was very powerful and could find her anywhere in the world;
On return to Dubai, Latifa was held against her will. She was locked in a house, guarded from the outside and from the inside;
Latifa’s movements are tightly controlled.
Latifa’s requests to see Tiina Jauhiainen have been refused;
The events set out at brackets (a) to (f) were undertaken upon the instructions of the father and carried out by agents acting on his behalf”
Princess Haya though had very enthusiastically produced Tiina Jauhiainen to the British High Court as an “eye witness” of the Sheikha Latifa case, she did not bring the prime witness, Herve Jaubert as she told the court that she does not rely upon what he says.
One of the main reasons for Princess Haya’s unwillingness in bringing Herve Jaubert as a witness is because of her fear that Herve would tell the British High Court about Sheikha Latifa’s murder inside the Dubai palace by Sheikh Maktoum. According to various sources, Princess Haya had made a secret deal multi-billion-dollar deal with Sheikh Rashid al Maktoum for hiding the fact about the murder of Sheikha Latifa. Accordingly, the Dubai ruler had also purchased Tiina and her cohorts in exchange for a huge sum of cash. People may question if Tiina was already purchased by Maktoum, why she had appeared as a witness in the court; the reply is very simple. Tiina Jauhiainen or her cohorts do not want the world to know the fact about the murder of Sheikha Latifa. This is the reason she too has agreed to give a statement in the court as it would burry the case of the murder of Sheikha Latifa.
Even Sheikh Maktoum’s written statement in the court clearly proves that the Dubai ruler has good relations with Tiina Jauhiainen. In his statement, Sheikh Maktoum wrote, “In relation to Latifa’s return to Dubai in 2018 I feel compelled to say that, with respect, I do not consider that this honourable court is in a position to investigate the security and intelligence issues that arose. I can confirm that we had reason to believe that Latifa had been manipulated over a long period of time by a man called Herve Jaubert (a Frenchman now based, I believe, in Manila), and possibly by others too.
“Sadly it seems that Mr Jaubert’s objective was to extort money. Certainly, a financial demand was made to us. We feared that our daughter was in the hands of a criminal who might hold her to ransom and harm her. To this day I consider that Latifa’s return to Dubai was a rescue mission”.
Sheikh Maktoum further concluded his observations about the Latifa episode by making three points with respect to Herve Jaubert, including referring to an email that Latifa did send from the boat to a Florida attorney indicating that she intended to make a claim against her father [Sheikh Maktoum] for damages totalling US$ 300,000,000.
Although Sheikh Maktoum and Princess Haya visibly have differences and disputes amongst themselves, one point is made clear from the judgement of the British High Court – both Haya and Maktoum hate Herve Jaubert and they consider Tiina Jauhiainen in their own side.
According to latest media report, Princess Latifa is not held captive in Dubai palace. Instead, she has been living a free life.
Please follow Blitz on Google News channel