A Judicial Disaster: What Do the Amendments to Egypt’s Criminal Laws Contain?

The Egyptian House of Representatives is currently reviewing a draft amendment to the Criminal Procedures Law No. 150 of 1950, a move that has ignited a surge of criticism from human rights advocates.

Critics argue that the proposed changes could dismantle the fragile remnants of civil liberties in Egypt, where freedoms have already been significantly eroded under the current government.

The Egyptian Prime Minister’s prior endorsement of the amendments, even before their presentation in the general session of Parliament or a broader societal debate, has only intensified these concerns.

Pretrial Detention

The Criminal Procedures Code is a cornerstone of Egypt’s legal system, shaping the framework for litigation, pretrial detention, arrest procedures, home privacy, and the role of defense attorneys.

The law has undergone numerous revisions over the years, the latest being in September 2020 with Law 189 of 2020. However, the current proposed amendments are being scrutinized for their potential to further curtail basic rights, particularly in four critical areas.

Basel Reda, an Egyptian political activist and researcher, says that the proposed reduction in pretrial detention periods appears to be a positive step, aligned with the outcomes of the national dialogue initiated by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

The amendment suggests lowering the maximum detention period for misdemeanors from six to four months, for ordinary felonies from 18 to 12 months, and for serious felonies, including those punishable by life imprisonment or death, from 24 to 18 months. The overall cap for pretrial detention would be set at two years.

“But these changes may be superficial. They point to the persistent issue of ‘recycling detainees,’ where individuals nearing the end of their detention period are recharged with new offenses, effectively resetting the pretrial detention clock,” Reda told Al-Estiklal.

This practice renders the proposed reductions meaningless. Moreover, the amendments leave intact vague anti-terrorism provisions (articles 40-42-43) that grant security forces sweeping powers, particularly in cases involving political detainees, where these provisions are frequently invoked to bypass standard legal protections.

One of the most controversial changes is found in Article 266, which prohibits the recording or broadcasting of court proceedings without the written consent of the presiding judge, who must first obtain permission from the Public Prosecution.

The subsequent Article 267 extends this restriction by forbidding the publication of any news or discussions about ongoing trials that might influence the outcome.

Particularly alarming is the prohibition on sharing information about judges, prosecutors, defendants, and witnesses in terrorism-related cases, which are often shrouded in secrecy.

Repressive Laws

These restrictions are backed by significant penalties. Journalists or media professionals who violate these rules face fines ranging from 100,000 to 300,000 Egyptian pounds under Article 186 bis of the Penal Code.

This provision punishes anyone who records or broadcasts trial sessions without proper authorization, effectively silencing media coverage of sensitive cases.

Another point of contention is the diminished role of defense lawyers in the legislative process.

The amendments grant the Judges Club considerable influence over drafting and revising laws related to court jurisdiction, excluding the General Syndicate of Lawyers from a role that traditionally belongs to them.

This shift raises concerns about the erosion of legal representation and advocacy within Egypt’s judicial system.

Moreover, Article 69 of the amended law permits the Public Prosecution to conduct investigations without the presence of the accused or their representatives if deemed necessary to uncover the truth.

While the accused can later review the investigation, this provision could potentially be abused, leading to unfair trials. In urgent situations, investigations may proceed entirely without the participation of the defense, a clear deviation from standard legal practice.

The amendments further restrict defense lawyers' ability to advocate for their clients.

Article 72 allows lawyers to present their arguments only in writing unless granted permission by the Public Prosecutor to speak. If permission is denied, it must be noted in the record, yet this limitation is seen as a direct violation of the fundamental right to a fair defense.

“Taken together, these amendments represent a troubling step towards a more repressive legal framework in Egypt, where the balance between state power and individual freedoms disappears,” Reda added.

“Precautionary Measures”

The 2019 amendment to Article 35 of Egypt's Constitution enshrined protections for private property, stipulating that it could only be expropriated for public good and with fair compensation. It also ensured that homes could not be entered without judicial permission.

This provision was seen as a critical safeguard of personal privacy and property rights.

However, these protections now face significant challenges under proposed amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure currently being reviewed by the Egyptian Parliament.

A key provision in the draft law, Article 24 bis, grants sweeping powers to public authorities, expanding the scope beyond judicial police officers to include anyone tasked with maintaining public order, security, or morals.

“This article permits such personnel to enter private homes without prior judicial authorization, effectively eroding the constitutional guarantee of privacy and opening the door to potential abuses,” Reda noted.

Further concerns are related to Article 47, which allows authorities to enter homes without judicial approval under broadly defined circumstances of “danger” or “distress.”

The lack of clear definitions for these terms creates a loophole that could be exploited to justify unwarranted intrusions.

Additionally, Article 49 introduces vague “precautionary measures” that authorities can implement, again without specific guidelines, leaving citizens vulnerable to arbitrary actions by the state.

These proposed changes have sparked outrage among legal experts and human rights advocates, who argue that they undermine the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of the accused.

Another problem of the proposed law is the provision for electronic trials, which would allow judges to conduct proceedings remotely.

Reda pointed out that this could violate the accused's right to be present at all stages of their trial, a fundamental principle of fair justice. Moreover, the law does not require authorities to provide the defense with access to case files, further compromising the fairness of the trial process.

Reda also criticized the vagueness of many provisions in the draft law. He highlighted the expansion of the judicial police’s powers, allowing even non-commissioned officers and security assistants to arrest citizens without a warrant, as a particularly dangerous development.

“The significant increase in retrial fees from 200 to 10,000 pounds is disastrous for ordinary citizens and a severe blow to justice,” he concluded.

These amendments, if passed, could significantly weaken the protections enshrined in Egypt's Constitution, granting authorities greater powers at the expense of individual rights and judicial fairness.