The Journalists’ Syndicate sent an official letter in the name of the head of the Egyptian Journalists’ Syndicate, Khaled El-Balshy, yesterday, Sunday, 10 September 2023, to Kamal Abu Eita, former minister of manpower and member of the Presidential Pardon Committee. The letter, a copy of which Zawia3 obtained, stated that the syndicate “has been informed by some colleagues at the Zawia3 website, who are covering the trial of Mr Hisham Kassem following the complaint you filed against him, of your displeasure with some of what they publish as part of their work following the case”.
In its letter, the syndicate noted that it “is not a party to the case before the Egyptian judiciary” nor “a body to evaluate the decisions resulting from your decision to file a complaint against Hisham”.
The head of the Journalists’ Syndicate said in his letter: “We appreciate your efforts on the Pardon Committee in defence of the release of all prisoners of conscience. We also recall many of your positions in defence of the syndicate and of press freedom when it was subjected to assault, aggression or restrictions.”
El-Balshy added: “We do not need to explain the gains and guarantees brought by the Egyptian Constitution, which side with freedom of expression and press freedom, and which were the fruit of a long struggle by all the living forces in society, whose role we still need in making every effort to translate these articles into legislation, given that this freedom belongs to every citizen and not to journalists alone.” The letter also stressed that “the Journalists’ Syndicate defends the profession and the right of every journalist to do their work of publishing information through fair coverage that respects the reader’s right to access and knowledge, and does not consider that grounds for threatening or restricting them”.
In his letter to Kamal Abu Eita, El-Balshy recalled Article 71 of the Egyptian Constitution, which states: “No custodial penalty shall be imposed for crimes committed by way of publication or publicity. Penalties for crimes related to incitement to violence, discrimination between citizens or impugning the honour of individuals shall be determined by law.”
The head of the Journalists’ Syndicate stressed that “society will develop for the better by unleashing press freedom, foremost among which is a safe working environment for journalists without pressure, imprisonment or threats in publishing cases”.
Kamal Abu Eita had written a comment containing threats on Zawia3’s Facebook page, on a news item the website published about Hisham Kassem’s case; it was later deleted, but a number of journalists published it to show their objection to the threats. For its part, the editorial board notified the Journalists’ Syndicate of the incident, given that the editorial leadership consists of members of the Journalists’ Syndicate’s general assembly. The website’s management also informed Abu Eita that it “believes in full freedom of expression, but freedom of expression should not include any threats of imprisonment or otherwise”, and stressed that it might take legal action against him over these threats.
Clarification and Apology from Abu Eita
Kamal Abu Eita sent a reply to the letter of the head of the Journalists’ Syndicate to confirm that Zawia3 had done its work professionally while covering Hisham Kassem’s case, and that he had not meant to direct his words at the journalist who published the news or at the website. The text of his letter read: “Respected Mr Head of the Journalists’ Syndicate, warm greetings and full respect to you, as you are committed to your general assembly and what it demands. I salute your continued efforts in demanding the release of journalists. As for the published incident, which was misunderstood, I did not mean the journalist or the website at all. It may have been caused by my lack of proficiency in using this technology. After returning yesterday from a search trip through police stations and National Security for colleagues who had been arrested, I opened the phone to find Zawia3 publishing objectively and professionally about an incident of imprisonment over insult and defamation. The treatment was respectful, and the comments objective, whether for or against.”
Abu Eita added in his letter: “My comment was a reply to one of those who were insolent in the comments, and as soon as I wrote my reply, he withdrew his comment, cowardly like rats. So my reply appeared as if it were directed against the journalist or the website. Had I meant that, I would have said it.”
He added: “I have seen that Zawia3 is closer to objectivity and professionalism,” confirming his apology for the “technological error”. Abu Eita concluded his letter with: “I thank the Journalists’ Syndicate, represented by you, for defending the interests of its members. Also, I consider myself in solidarity with him (the editor-in-chief) in his grievance. I have presented it before and will present it again.” Here Abu Eita means the grievance of Zawia3’s editor-in-chief, Ahmed Gamal Ziada, whose father was arrested because of his journalistic work.
Abu Eita: In Solidarity with “Gamal Ziada”
Kamal Abu Eita sent a message asking for the details of the father of Zawia3’s editor-in-chief, in his capacity as a member of the Presidential Pardon Committee, which President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi directed to be reactivated, and which was formed as one of the recommendations of the 2016 National Youth Conference, with its scope of work to be expanded in cooperation with the competent agencies and the concerned civil society organisations. Abu Eita promised to intervene for the release of the father of journalist Ahmed Gamal Ziada, considering him wronged and standing in solidarity with him.
A Comment from Zawia3
Zawia3 would like to express its gratitude to the head of the Journalists’ Syndicate, Mr Khaled El-Balshy, for his serious efforts in supporting press freedom and journalists’ rights, and for his immediate and effective intervention in defending this important issue.
We also cannot ignore the statement of Mr Kamal Abu Eita, member of the Pardon Committee, who clarified what happened and testified to our professionalism, and we thank him for the clarification and the apology for the technological error.
