Egypt’s New Criminal Procedure Law: A ‘Legislative Disaster’?

Egypt's government, under the head of the Egyptian regime Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, is pushing forward a new criminal procedure code, claiming it will provide “greater guarantees for justice.” However, Egyptian human rights activists and international organizations have described the legislation as a “legislative disaster,” arguing it entrenches the National Security Agency's and other security bodies' overreach, undermining judicial authority.

Critics assert that the proposed law grants expansive powers to these agencies through loosely worded provisions, effectively legitimizing the regime’s violations against detainees.

Contentious Provisions

On December 30, 2024, the Egyptian parliament witnessed heated debates between opposition MPs and pro-regime lawmakers determined to pass the law. Earlier, on December 19, the parliament approved the draft in principle, with Speaker Hanafy Gebaly initiating a second round of detailed discussions on the bill's articles.

Despite calls for public dialogue, the Speaker bypassed these appeals, presenting the parliamentary debate as democratic by involving as many MPs as possible over 12 plenary sessions. Ultimately, the draft criminal procedure code—thought to have stalled amid human rights objections and international reservations—was put back on track for approval.

The code comprises 540 articles, though the final report by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, in collaboration with the Human Rights Committee, addressed only 129 articles by late October 2024. The report recommended rewording 80 articles, amending 21 for “legislative coherence and clarity,” and rejecting 28 proposed changes. It also broadly discussed provisions related to witness protection, compensation for pretrial detention, and remote trial procedures without delving into specific articles.

Among the most controversial are Articles 31, 39, 40, and 63, which grant sweeping powers to judicial officers. These include questioning suspects, issuing arrest warrants for absentees, and interrogating individuals when delays might hinder investigations.

Article 147 has also raised alarm, as it expands the Public Prosecution’s authority, enabling it to impose travel bans for up to a year, with the possibility of indefinite renewals. Critics argue this effectively turns travel restrictions into a tool for unchecked prosecutorial control.

Still, Article 35 introduces new powers for prosecutors, allowing them to fine individuals who violate orders from judicial officers—a sanction previously reserved for judges.

Online Trials

Under Article 116 of Egypt's proposed criminal procedure code, the Public Prosecution would gain extraordinary powers, including the authority to extend pretrial detention without judicial oversight for up to 150 days. It also grants prosecutors the right to record private calls during investigations without requiring court approval, raising significant privacy concerns.

In a December 24 article for Almanassa, Egyptian human rights lawyer Mahmoud Gamal Eldin shared insights from attending national dialogue sessions on the draft law. He noted that the legislation gives prosecutors and courts the discretionary power to conduct trials remotely, with no requirement for exceptional circumstances to justify such measures.

Gamal Eldin warned that remote trials could compromise defense rights, as lawyers would be forced to represent their clients from detention facilities, creating an environment of fear that hinders effective legal representation. Under international human rights standards, emergencies must be proportionate to the threat and continually reassessed to avoid normalizing exceptional measures, according to the lawyer.

Citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Gamal Eldin emphasized that all accused individuals have the right to a fair trial, to be present in court, to defend themselves, and to cross-examine witnesses.

Article 527, another contentious provision, permits the remote trial of children without their physical presence before the prosecution or court. Judges would rely solely on recorded investigation proceedings, bypassing even virtual interaction with the child if deemed in the child’s “best interest.”

Human rights lawyer Halem Henish, writing for The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy argued that this provision isolates detained children, depriving them of opportunities to file complaints or directly communicate with the judiciary about their conditions in custody, exposing them to potential abuse.

The proposed law reduces the maximum pretrial detention period from 24 months to 18 months. However, critics deem this change superficial, as the Public Prosecution retains broad discretion over extending and renewing detentions without meaningful judicial oversight. These extended pretrial periods far exceed international standards.

The draft also lacks provisions to restrict the practice of “recycling” detainees—charging individuals with the same accusations in new cases to prolong their detention. This tactic has been used to politically target prominent opposition figures, such as former presidential candidates Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh and Ahmed Tantawi, as well as rights advocate Hoda Abdelmonem, among others.

National Security

Article 25 of Egypt’s proposed criminal procedure code seeks to formalize practices by the National Security Sector, significantly expanding its authority. The article broadens the definition of judicial officers to include National Security officers and their assistants, granting them unprecedented powers to investigate crimes, gather evidence, and arrest individuals.

On December 29, 2024, the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms condemned the draft law, describing its provisions as a “legislative disaster.” The commission criticized the law for consolidating investigative, prosecutorial, and referral powers in the hands of the Public Prosecution, while shielding judicial officers from accountability for human rights violations, such as torture and enforced disappearances.

The draft law also sparked opposition from journalists' syndicates, human rights groups, and lawyers, who objected to the sweeping powers granted to the prosecution and the codification of repressive practices under the guise of legal reform.

Mohamed Abdel Alim Daoud, a Member of Parliament from the Wafd Party, opposed the bill, confronting Speaker Hanafy Gebaly and calling for a complete overhaul to limit the prosecution's authority and strengthen defendants' rights.

Karim al-Yaacoubi, a lawyer and human rights advocate, criticized the draft law as a deliberate move to undermine constitutional guarantees of freedom and rights, which were already insufficient. Speaking to Al-Estiklal, al-Yaacoubi said, “The current form of the law aligns with the nature of the security state, dismantling the remnants of the rule of law and erasing the fragile social progress achieved after the January 25 Revolution.”

Al-Yaacoubi linked the draft law to the historical trajectory of Egypt’s military state, tracing its roots back to the July 1952 revolution. “The difference now is an attempt to fully integrate exceptional laws into the general legal framework, abandoning traditional emergency and martial law measures,” he said.

He argued that the proposed law represents a systematic dismantling of Egypt’s modern legal system, describing it as “a complete destruction of procedural safeguards essential to the law itself.”

The lawyer expressed dismay at the complicity of Egypt’s legal and judicial elite, contrasting their stance with the principled legacy of jurists like Abdel el-Razzaq el-Sanhuri and Mahmoud el-Khodeiry. “Their acquiescence marks a historic departure from the honorable tradition of Egypt’s judiciary,” he concluded.