Thursday, July 31/2025 – 12:40 PM
Lawyer Tamer Mansour submitted the defense of the third suspect in the case of the explosion of the oases gas line, stabbing the ruling against his client from the October Appellate Court, rejecting the appeal and supporting the detention of 10 years.
The issue of the October gas line explosion
It is noteworthy that the October Appellate Misdemeanor Court ruled earlier, supporting the sentence of 6 accused for a period of 10 years in the case of the oasis gas line.
For his part, the defense of one of the fugitive defendants in the case of the explosion of the oases gas line, opposing the sentence of his imprisonment issued in absentia for 10 years, and issued by the October Criminal Court.
The issue of the explosion of the oases gas line
The court issued its ruling to punish 5 accused and another fugitive for 10 years imprisonment, after being convicted of causing the death of 8 people as a result of the severe injuries caused by the fire that broke out after the explosion.
The Court listened to the defense requests for the victims earlier, which claimed a civilian for 101 thousand pounds for the injured victims, and 201 thousand pounds for the deceased victims, and to ensure the treatment of the injured at the expense of the accused and the October device.
The Public Prosecution clarified that the accident was due to a serious negligence by officials of the contracting company implementing the project to develop the oases road, as well as the competent engineering consulting office, as it was found that they started drilling work without obtaining the necessary permits from the competent authorities, and without taking safety measures, or actual supervision of the competent consultant, which led to the breaking of the gas pipe, leakage, ignition and explosion.
The investigations of the Public Prosecution proved that the excavation work was carried out using heavy equipment, without conducting the necessary manual senses for the soil, in violation of the approved technical assets, and the contracting company, the gas company, did not notice, before starting the works, despite its knowledge of the necessity of prior coordination.
