Phone cameras are no longer simply a way to record everyday moments. They have become witnesses at the centre of events, capturing what authorities or surveillance cameras may miss. From harassment and theft to domestic violence and killings, video recordings have helped turn crimes into matters of public concern and prompted urgent official intervention.
But why do citizens choose to post on digital platforms rather than pursue conventional legal channels? And how have these recordings drawn official attention to crimes on Egypt’s streets?
As videos depicting criminal incidents circulate more widely, the Public Prosecution has urged citizens to stop publishing them and instead submit them through official channels.
In its statement, the prosecution warned that circulating such material outside the legal process could harm victims and their families, undermine investigations and give suspects opportunities to manipulate events or influence public opinion. Those publishing the recordings could themselves face legal liability, it added.
Since early May 2025, the prosecution had also asked citizens to report potentially criminal content through a number announced on its official social-media accounts, as part of an initiative by Prosecutor General Mohamed Shawky.
Fathi Qenawy, a professor specialising in crime detection at the National Centre for Social and Criminological Research, explains the reasoning behind the statement: “Publishing excerpts from videos concerning criminal cases exposes investigations and victims to harm.”
Speaking to Zawia3, he says evidence must be complete. Building an account around isolated clips can produce false allegations and public confusion. Social-media platforms sometimes distort events when selected footage is posted to maximise its reach, he argues. The proper course is to submit a complaint to the competent authorities with the full recording and supporting documents.
Protecting the justice process and the rights of both defendants and victims, Qenawy concludes, requires submitting evidence in full rather than circulating incomplete material online.
The Adham Singer case
Lawyer and legal researcher Abdel Razek Mostafa agrees. He tells Zawia3 that the prosecution’s statement does not mean it will refuse evidence; it stresses the need to submit it through official channels, preserving the integrity of investigations and protecting evidence against manipulation.
Mostafa says a clear chain of custody is necessary for criminal evidence to carry weight in court. Publishing edited clips online, by contrast, may damage a case by alerting suspects or influencing witnesses and public opinion.
There is also a rights dimension, he adds: protecting victims’ privacy and dignity, and preventing the circulation of distressing scenes that may traumatise their relatives. He warns that publishers may face liability under cybercrime legislation if their posts violate privacy or public decency.
“Justice is not a commodity to be circulated on social-media platforms. The proper way to submit evidence is through official channels that ensure the integrity of investigations, the confidentiality of proceedings and the rights of all parties.”
Mostafa’s remarks come amid controversy surrounding his client, content creator Adham Singer. Singer reported being insulted and verbally assaulted on the Dahshur Link Road in Giza by a man who identified himself as a judge, in an incident recorded on video. Mostafa denies social-media rumours that the prosecution refused to accept the footage. He says prosecutors asked the complainant to submit it himself during questioning or through the designated official reporting channels.
The lawyer filed complaint No. 2551 of 2025, registered as an administrative report at First Sheikh Zayed, with the Public Prosecution. He also submitted a complaint to the Supreme Judicial Council and an appeal to the Presidency concerning the incident. The outcome of the investigations remained pending at the time of publication.
Why not rely on official channels?
Why do some citizens record assaults and violations and publish them instead of relying solely on the authorities? Human-rights lawyer Aya Hamdy points to increasingly complex patterns of crime, weak legal protection for witnesses and whistleblowers, and fear of intervening directly in situations that might endanger them.
These factors make phone cameras an alternative means of documenting evidence, she tells Zawia3. Not every street has surveillance cameras, and video can provide a record that is difficult to deny. Population growth and urban expansion have also been accompanied by diverse forms of crime, extending beyond public spaces into families themselves, increasing the need for less conventional ways of documenting incidents.
Sociologist Saeed Sadek considers citizens essential to exposing crimes. Police cannot be everywhere, he says, while recordings can reveal perpetrators’ actions and prompt the authorities to intervene, as in harassment cases.
He criticises what he describes as judicial leniency in some such cases and argues that a lack of transparency about investigation outcomes and rulings erodes public trust. The media and social platforms, he stresses, are not enemies of the security authorities.
Sadek views the publication of recorded crimes as an aid to justice rather than defamation. He points to community-watch initiatives in the United States, where residents cooperate with police through cameras and reports of suspicious activity.
“What is needed is not to prevent people from publishing, but for the state to announce investigation results and measures clearly, so citizens feel that justice is strong and effective.”
Mostafa, meanwhile, attributes the decision to bypass official channels to several motives, most of them social and psychological. Some people see legal procedures as slow and complicated, while immediate publication creates public pressure that can accelerate the authorities’ response.
Others seek attention and fame by making content trend, even at the expense of legal or ethical considerations, he adds. A recording may also be published in good faith to document a crime, yet harm the case or expose its publisher to liability because it infringes privacy or social norms. In his view, the practice reflects a growing conviction that public exposure has become a form of social punishment and rapid deterrence.
Writer Omar Hazek shares concerns about filming children and women because of the serious psychological and social harm it can cause. Yet he tells Zawia3 that people sometimes feel they have no alternative to publishing footage to generate pressure and force the relevant authorities to act. Some incidents receive little attention, while others prompt an urgent response simply because they go viral.
At its heart, Hazek argues, the phenomenon reveals an accumulated crisis of trust between citizens and the authorities. Many believe official complaints will not receive sufficient attention unless they become matters of public concern.
Citizen-recorded footage thus remains a double-edged tool. It can expose crimes and push the authorities towards immediate action, but publishing it may also place the person behind the camera under legal scrutiny.
Between the prosecution’s call to use official channels and citizens’ determination to use their phones to watch and expose wrongdoing lies a deepening gap between society and its institutions. Without transparency about investigation outcomes and court rulings, people may continue turning to “digital justice” as a last resort despite official warnings.
Can the state restore public confidence in formal legal procedures so that small screens cease to serve as an alternative arena for justice? Or will the phones remain raised?
