A statement issued by the Maritime Club of the Administrative Prosecution Authority sparked wide controversy on Facebook, after it was reposted by several political figures from across the spectrum, including Tamer El-Shahawy, a former member of the Egyptian Parliament and the Defence and National Security Committee. The statement revealed an unusual glimpse into growing tensions within judicial bodies. It included clear criticism of the Judges’ Club and the National Election Authority over what it described as violations and the undermining of the rights of members assigned to supervise the elections. While the statement objected to what it called “the narcissism of the Judges’ Club’s discourse” and “the harshness of the National Election Authority,” it offered a detailed account of harsh working conditions inside the committees and of decisions it blamed for organizational confusion and the absence of minimum guarantees for fulfilling supervisory duties.
The statement, signed by Counselor Saad Al-Nazhhi, Chairman of the Club’s Board of Directors and former Vice President of the Administrative Prosecution Authority, described the prevention of candidate agents from receiving ballot-count result forms, the lack of transportation and adequate accommodation, and the extension of working hours beyond legal limits. It also referred to what it described as the Authority’s “disavowal” of its responsibility before public opinion. Despite these criticisms, the statement affirmed that the members “fulfilled their duty to the nation with the struggle of warriors,” and that any mistakes, which it described as “individual,” if they occurred, resulted from inhumane working conditions.
In an exclusive statement to Zawia3, Counselor Saad Al-Nazhhi, Chairman of the Club’s Board of Directors and former Vice President of the Administrative Prosecution Authority, confirmed the authenticity of the statement and called for adherence to what it contained.
Don’t miss: Egypt’s Parliamentary Battleground: National Security Candidates vs. Intelligence-Backed Candidates
Zawia3 Obtains Messages Confirming Administrative Prosecution Members’ Refusal to Hand Over Count Results
In a related development, Zawia3 obtained copies of internal conversations from a closed WhatsApp group that included several counselors from the Administrative Prosecution Authority who were assigned to one of the general committees in an electoral district in Giza Governorate.
The messages reveal instructions circulated as coming from the National Election Authority and the Higher Committee, stressing strict adherence to the law regarding permission to attend the vote-counting process.
One of the messages stated that attendance at the vote count is allowed only with an official power of attorney issued by the Real Estate Registry in the name of the candidate. The document must include the number of the subcommittee and explicitly authorize the agent to represent the candidate inside the counting room, or the candidate may attend in person. The message emphasized: “In all other cases, attendance at the count is not permitted,” while imposing a complete ban on photographing results with mobile phones or handing over any official record of the result.
In addition, the messages instructed subcommittee heads to ensure that all papers were cleared from committee premises once the counting process was completed, reflecting a tightening of procedures for handling documents and data inside the committees.
Alongside these messages, Zawia3 reviewed other conversations in similar general-committee groups, which revealed a broader debate among counselors over the instructions governing the handling of counting reports. In one such message, a member of the Administrative Prosecution Authority confirmed that the instructions they had received prohibited handing over any data on turnout or counting results to any party, whether the candidate’s representative, the police, or the local administration, stressing that communication regarding results was conducted only with the Higher Committee.
This strict approach raised questions within the group about Form “12 N,” which the law requires to be delivered to the candidate’s representative or agent, and which the National Election Authority had previously distributed to the committees in sufficient numbers. One counselor responded that he was aware of these instructions but was “only asking for confirmation before the counting time,” reflecting a state of confusion between legal requirements and the instructions circulating inside the subcommittees. This points to the accuracy of what was stated in the Administrative Prosecution Maritime Club’s statement issued earlier on 20 November. Zawia3 contacted the official spokesperson of the Administrative Prosecution Authority, Counselor Mohamed Samir, but he did not respond.
Counselor Hazem Badawi, Chairman of the National Election Authority, had acknowledged during the press conference held to announce the results of the first phase that the failure to hand the candidate or their agent a copy of the vote-count tally, along with discrepancies between the figures recorded by subcommittees and general committees, constituted part of the violations that had been documented. Badawi explained that these violations were among the main reasons the Authority relied upon in its decision to annul the results in the nineteen disputed districts, which contradicts the content of the messages asserting that the instructions came from the National Election Authority itself.
Meanwhile, Zawia3 contacted a source inside the National Election Authority to obtain a response regarding the content of the messages circulating in the judges’ groups, as well as to request comment on the Administrative Prosecution Maritime Club’s statement. The source refused to comment on the Administrative Prosecution’s statement, limiting his remarks to affirming the transparency and independence of the Authority and its commitment to safeguarding the electoral process in accordance with the law and the constitution.
In a press conference held today, Thursday, the National Election Authority presented its account of the timing of its decision to annul the results of the nineteen districts. Counselor Ahmed Bendari, Director of the Authority’s Executive Body, stated that President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s statement issued on 17 November gave the Authority “comfort and confidence” in announcing its decision, but he stressed at the same time that the Authority had, in fact, made its decision before the statement was issued. He added that the appearance of the Authority’s chairman beside him after the president’s statement was intended to signal this “reassurance,” not to suggest that the decision was based on a political directive.
Bendari affirmed that the Authority “does not fear taking its decisions” but adheres to the legally established timeline for announcing results, explaining that the electoral process extends in time until all stages of numerical aggregation, appeals, adjudications, and notifications are completed, which meant that the final aggregation procedures were indeed concluded on 14 November.
Responding to criticism linking the president’s statement to the annulment of the districts, Bendari said: “Is it conceivable that the statement was issued and then we annulled nineteen districts within six hours? Impossible.” He noted that the annulled districts included about 1,900 subcommittees requiring meticulous review of papers and figures before any decision could be made. He explained that the Authority had identified the violations and meticulously traced them, and that the annulment decision was based on “documented findings,” while the presidential statement merely reinforced the “stability of the Authority” as a judicial body that takes no instructions.
Don’t miss: Egypt: Sovereign report warns of public anger — why did the President raise electoral violations?
The Maritime Club’s Statement Follows Those of the Judges’ Club and the Administrative Prosecution
The statement issued by the Maritime Club of the Administrative Prosecution Authority is the third of its kind, following statements from the Judges’ Club and the Administrative Prosecution Authority. The Judges’ Club of Egypt had issued a statement last Tuesday affirming that judges and members of the Public Prosecution did not supervise the 2025 parliamentary elections, in accordance with constitutional provisions that prohibit judicial participation in election supervision beyond what the law permits.
The Club expressed appreciation for President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s directives to the National Election Authority to take “the correct decision” in cases where the true will of voters could not be achieved, considering these directives a reflection of the state’s commitment to integrity and transparency. The Club also thanked both the Administrative Prosecution Authority and the State Lawsuits Authority for their efforts in supervising the first round.
The statement reiterated that judges and Public Prosecution members did not supervise the parliamentary elections on the basis of constitutional provisions, while the Club regarded the president’s directives as a clear step toward ensuring integrity and safeguarding the electoral process.
In contrast, the Club of Administrative Prosecution Counselors, headed by Counselor Abdelraouf Moussa, issued a statement regarding the Authority’s supervision of the first phase of the House of Representatives elections. The statement affirmed that the Club, based on the principles of participatory national action and the strengthening of the rule of law in the New Republic, extends its gratitude to the Administrative Prosecution counselors for their efforts during the previous rounds of the Senate and House elections. It stated that the supervision was conducted in accordance with principles of integrity, transparency, neutrality, and professionalism, earning widespread praise and demonstrating a deep commitment to the constitution and the law.
The statement added that what the National Election Authority announced regarding the reasons for rerunning the elections in the individual system in certain districts was unrelated to the integrity or neutrality of the administration of the electoral process, which it described as the foundational pillar of a sound democratic system. The statement concluded by affirming the Club’s pride in the role of Administrative Prosecution counselors and their efforts in bearing responsibility and upholding justice, expressing the aspiration to continue fulfilling this high national duty and to keep serving the nation and upholding the value of justice and the rule of law.
Following the circulation of statements issued by various administrative bodies, which intensified the debate over the integrity of the elections, several politicians called for cancelling the elections altogether and rerunning them from the beginning. In this context, Emad Gad, Deputy Head of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, appealed to President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, stressing that his highest priority is Egypt’s security and stability.
Gad argued that the current situation necessitates cancelling the elections in their entirety and creating space to establish a new legal framework to regulate all components of political life in the country. He explained that the violations witnessed in the recent electoral process led to disputes among judicial bodies and widespread popular anger, pointing to leaks from committee supervisors showing that instructions contrary to the law had been issued.
Gad warned that any partial or superficial solutions would return the country to the post-2010 scenario, when elections were engineered in favor of certain forces. He argued that repeating similar practices today, through politically similar faces with insufficient experience, could worsen the crisis.
He emphasized that the only path to ensuring security and stability and avoiding renewed public anger lies in annulling the recent Senate and House election results and rebuilding the process on sound foundations. He added that the network of corruption, the arrogance of certain parties toward the public, and the fabrication of election results serve only narrow interests, and that these actors may abandon the country if the political or economic situation deteriorates.
Don’t miss: 70 Million for a Seat: The Price of Entering Egypt’s Parliament
The Electoral Deadlock and the Final Warning
Lawyer and leading figure in the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, Ahmed Fawzy, affirms that the 2025 parliamentary elections constitute a clear warning to all political, judicial, and administrative actors. He explains that what unfolded during this round revealed persistent structural challenges within Egypt’s electoral system and underscored the urgent need for an inclusive and serious national dialogue to reassess the management of the electoral process, ensure its integrity and transparency, and strengthen meaningful popular participation.
Speaking to Zawia3, Fawzy noted that the sharply contrasting assessments of the electoral process, with some describing it as “the most transparent” and others calling it “the worst election in Egypt’s history,” reflect exaggeration and political divergence. Yet they highlight at the same time the absence of genuine electoral freedom in Egypt. He explained that such freedom has never been historically realized, due to the lack of independent institutions, the weakness of fair media, and long-standing constraints on political and civic activity, all of which have limited citizens’ ability to participate freely and effectively.
He added that freedom of participation is not limited to the right to vote, but includes enabling citizens to establish political organizations, access independent media platforms, and engage in transparent political processes free from material pressure, religious influence, or legal coercion.
Fawzy warns that the violations of the recent electoral process, including the withholding of counting reports from certain parties based on high-level directives, have fueled tensions among judicial institutions and provoked widespread public anger. He stresses that placing the entire responsibility for all violations and irregularities on the National Election Authority is inaccurate, noting that the Authority operates under real administrative and financial constraints and lacks full capacity to independently organize the electoral process or effectively regulate political finance. This, he says, reveals the limits of its authority in the absence of genuine institutional support, even as the Authority itself does not object to these crises.
Fawzy points out that the broad participation of citizens in the 2025 elections, particularly in the individual-seat contests, exposed the flaws of the current electoral system and demonstrated the need for comprehensive and profound reforms. He emphasized that partial or superficial fixes will not suffice and that maintaining the current situation could lead to escalating popular tension, with negative consequences for national security and stability.
He stresses that the required reforms include: opening a serious national dialogue with democratic forces and the political opposition to ensure genuine participation; ensuring that citizens participate effectively and transparently in all stages of the electoral process; providing clear mechanisms to guarantee electoral integrity, from rigorous financial and political oversight to independent enforcement of electoral laws; and strengthening independent institutions by enhancing the capacity of the National Election Authority and granting it an independent budget and operational resources so it can carry out its duties without relying solely on the executive branch.
He states that these reforms are not merely cosmetic improvements but a strategic necessity for building a state of institutions and the rule of law in Egypt. They also strengthen trust between citizens and state authorities and ensure long-term stability, affirming that meaningful popular participation is the only way to expose the flaws of the electoral system and ensure its genuine and sustainable reform.
For his part, human rights lawyer Haitham Mohamedein explains that the atmosphere preceding the 2025 House of Representatives elections offered clear indications that the results were predetermined in favor of certain categories of candidates. Speaking to Zawia3, he noted that these signs included the exclusion of candidates on unlawful or contradictory grounds, such as alleged alcohol traces in medical tests, claims of failing to perform military service despite documents proving otherwise, or disqualifying candidates due to being listed as reservists even after completing their service.
He added that the first round of voting showed that competition over individual seats remained primarily among figures with local constituencies or networks of interests, even among pro-government candidates. As a result of bias or the opaque management of the electoral process, a wave of objections emerged, including circulated videos and statements on social media and appeals that were rejected, ultimately leading large segments of the public to lose confidence in the results of the first phase.
He also noted that the implicit intervention by the Presidency through a statement identifying violations further undermined the independence of the National Election Authority, giving the impression that the Authority was unable to detect or address violations on its own. This perception intensified when the Authority abruptly announced the rerun of elections in nineteen districts, which he considered an indication of the seriousness and scale of the violations.
Mohamedein also referred to the messages obtained by Zawia3, which contained instructions from the Higher Election Committee preventing the delivery of counting reports to candidates’ representatives. He argued that this places ultimate responsibility on the Higher Committee, even if some judges or subcommittee members refrained from handing over the reports on their own initiative without explicit instructions. In the end, he said, the Higher Committee remains the primary authority. He stressed that the entire electoral process has now become subject to questions of legitimacy, and that the current script and execution of the elections require a comprehensive reassessment.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Administrative Court has received appeals regarding the results of the first phase of the House elections. These appeals have so far reached around 250 from various governorates, according to the timeline announced by the National Election Authority. The appeals varied between requests to annul the entire electoral process, demands to invalidate the announced results in certain districts, or to cancel the reruns conducted in several constituencies.
Amid these heated and contentious circumstances since the announcement of the first-phase results, which were preceded by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s call for elections that reflect the will of the Egyptian people, the parliamentary process now faces a genuine deadlock. Cancelling the elections would create a clear constitutional crisis, as the constitution stipulates that the parliamentary term is five years, and the term of the last parliament has already expired. Yet continuing the elections under such tense conditions and in an atmosphere lacking trust in their integrity raises major questions about the legitimacy of the next parliament and its ability to perform its duties effectively. The question now is whether the Egyptian authorities and the National Election Authority will succeed in overcoming the crisis and completing the parliamentary elections in a less turbulent environment, or whether what is unfolding now will serve as the prelude to a far greater crisis in the coming period.
