Egypt's Judicial Crisis: 48 Judges Investigated Amid Growing Tensions

In a move described by the media as a "judicial massacre," Egypt's Minister of Justice, Adnan al-Fangari, on November 26, 2024, decided to refer 48 judges from the primary and appellate courts for investigation.

The decision followed multiple complaints from these judges regarding their deteriorating financial conditions, particularly in comparison to the privileges enjoyed by certain segments of the power structure, such as military officers.

The blow to the judiciary was prompted by a complaint filed by the head of the Judicial Inspection Department, Judge Wafae Absakhroun, which concerned judges discussing their financial struggles and burdens in private judicial groups on social media.

The judges under investigation expressed their frustration over the loss of their privileges and independence, claiming they had been reduced to mere employees of the executive branch, alongside the further deterioration of their financial rights, according to Egyptian media reports.

Strike Threat Looms

On November 29, 2024, several judges facing investigation threatened to call for a general assembly at the Egyptian Judges' Club headquarters. 

They announced plans to put forward a vote on suspending court operations, as well as to organize a strike and sit-in at the club, in protest against what they described as arbitrary referral decisions.

On December 2, 2024, Egypt's Mazid News reported, citing unnamed sources, that the families of the judges under investigation — including relatives in various judicial positions — expressed full solidarity with the affected judges, signaling the deepening of the crisis.

The report also noted that efforts are underway to arrange a meeting between Justice Minister Adnan al-Fangari and the Board of the Egyptian Judges' Club, led by Deputy Chief of the Court of Cassation, Judge Abu al-Hussein Fathi Qaid, in an attempt to defuse tensions and address the growing dispute.

Groundless Investigations

In response to the recent decisions regarding the referral of judges to investigation, Judge Jamal Qabeel, President of the Cairo Court of Appeal, told al-Quds al-Arabi that the Justice Minister’s move to refer the judges to the Judicial Inspection Department was "not based on any legal grounds."

Qabeel emphasized that the judges under investigation had not committed any misconduct warranting such action, as their only activity had been posting comments in closed groups designated for judges.

Meanwhile, Judge Ashraf Mustafa pointed out that financial disparity between the Court of Cassation judges and those of other courts has existed since 2014. 

Mustafa stressed that Cassation judges receive substantially higher financial privileges despite a reduction in their jurisdiction.

This is not the first time Egyptian judges have called for better living conditions. In 2020, amid worsening economic conditions, the Egyptian Judges' Club had petitioned for salary increases and better privileges. 

In a letter addressed to the head of the regime Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, then-President of the Judges' Club, Judge Mohamed Abdel Mohsen, stated that judges were suffering from a lack of rights due to unequal treatment compared to other judicial bodies. 

The letter called for parity in salaries and incentives between the three levels of the judiciary (Cassation, Appeal, and First Instance), an increase in session attendance fees, better medical support, and higher pensions.

Sectarianism and Corruption

On November 28, 2024, Akhbar al-Ghad, a local newspaper, reported that the highest salaries for Court of Appeal presidents amounted to approximately 40,000 Egyptian pounds per month (roughly $800 USD). 

In contrast, their counterparts in the Court of Cassation receive salaries of up to 75,000 pounds, with a significant pay gap between them and the heads of judicial bodies, who earn multiples of these amounts monthly.

What is striking is that this discontent among the judiciary comes despite the generous perks, bonuses, and monthly and annual allowances granted to judges by the Sisi regime. 

Since the military coup of July 3, 2013, the government has consistently raised judges' salaries. 

In 2018, Court of Appeal judges received a 5,000-pound salary increase, retroactively applied for a year, bringing them in line with their Cassation Court counterparts, in addition to their annual bonus.

In 2017, Egypt's Supreme Judicial Council decided to raise judges' salaries by amounts ranging between 2,600 and 4,200 pounds. 

Prior to that, in April 2016, judges saw their pay increase between 5,000 and 7,000 pounds per month, with a 30% increase implemented in mid-2015.

The National Wages Council had set the minimum wage on June 30, 2024, at 6,000 pounds, a figure that mirrored the wage floor in the public sector, which had also been raised to 6,000 pounds, alongside similar increases in the private sector.

On October 10, 2024, Abdel Moneim el-Gamal, head of the General Federation of Egyptian Trade Unions, told the local "etc" channel that the 6,000-pound minimum wage is the total salary paid to workers each month before insurance deductions, meaning the actual take-home pay could be as low as 4,500 or 4,600 pounds.

Humiliating Tests

However, the economic crisis and the recent judicial purge were not the only points of contention between judges and the regime.

On July 9, 2024, it was revealed that dozens of newly appointed judges in the Public Prosecution and State Council had failed the entrance exams at the Military Academy, forcing them to undergo a military-supervised training course.

In April 2023, the Egyptian regime issued a presidential directive requiring all those seeking government appointments to undergo a six-month training course at the Military Academy as a mandatory condition for employment.

The certification from this training was made a prerequisite for recruitment, a move that was rejected by the Egyptian Judges' Club.

Egyptian judicial circles condemned this insistence on embedding such a path, asserting that it constitutes a severe violation of judicial independence.

They stressed that these practices undermine the judicial identity of members of the judiciary and directly affect their professional development and subsequent conduct in their roles, thereby jeopardizing the credibility and integrity of judges and other participants in these courses.

Nasser Amin, head of the Justice Support Foundation, has described the regime’s decision to subject judges to military training, and to dismiss those who fail, as "the most significant threat to judicial independence in over 70 years."

In a statement posted on his Facebook account, Amin argued that the six-month military training for newly appointed judges raises two serious concerns.

"The first," he said, "is the violation of the principle of separation of powers, and the second is the infringement on the independence of the judiciary. According to the United Nations’ principles on judicial independence, any interference by the executive branch in judicial matters undermines the judiciary’s authority, erodes its independence, and infringes upon its prerogatives."

"Any interference in judicial affairs—whether it pertains to their appointment, training, duties, transfers, or secondments—constitutes an infringement prohibited by the constitution, particularly Article 165, which safeguards judicial independence," he continued.

Amin further emphasized that Article 166 upholds the independence of judges, prohibiting any authority from intervening in judicial affairs, while Article 173 defines the powers of the Supreme Judicial Council.

Sisi's Judicial Grip

The Egyptian security and intelligence apparatus, under the head of the regime Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has long instilled fear among most members of the country’s judicial system.

In his quest for total control, Sisi has weaponized a familiar tactic, leveraging numerous corruption scandals to target judges and members of the public prosecution. 

One of the most notable incidents occurred in January 2016, when the Administrative Control Authority, led by Mustafa, the son of el-Sisi, arrested the head of procurement at the State Council, Gamal al-Laban, with large sums of money — 24 million Egyptian pounds, 4 million U.S. dollars, and 2 million euros — in what became one of the largest judicial corruption scandals in the country. 

The case sent shockwaves through the judicial leadership.

This was not the only instance of retribution. 

In an example of personal retaliation, Judge Sherif Hafez, a vocal advocate for judicial independence, was targeted after he reduced a sentence in a local case, angering the authorities. 

He was later accused of sexual bribery in June 2016, stripped of his judicial immunity, and referred to the disciplinary council. 

However, Hafez was acquitted in July 2016, though his reputation had been tarnished.

In November 2016, the judiciary was rocked by another scandal when Judge Tarek Mohamed Zaki Mustafa, president of the Dairb Nigm Court in al-Sharqia, was arrested after being caught with large quantities of hashish in his car, accompanied by a student and a driver, in the Suez Governorate. 

This case raises alarm among the judiciary over the growing risks of defamation and the revelation of similar scandals, prompting many judges to refrain from direct confrontations with the regime, as seen in the battle over amendments to the Judicial Authority Law and the ruling on the sovereignty of the Tiran and Sanafir islands.

A 2019 paper published by the Malcolm Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, authored by researcher Sahar Aziz, highlighted the ongoing subjugation of Egypt’s judiciary. 

The study, titled “Egypt’s Judiciary, Coopted”, stated, "The executive branch’s persistent efforts to discourage and punish independent judges have left the judiciary weak and coopted."

"In light of the myriad tools used to restrain judicial independence, it is unsurprising that portions of the judiciary are cooperative in the ongoing crackdown on political dissidents. The current political climate makes it too costly for a judge to challenge the executive’s core interests." Aziz concluded.