Phone cameras are no longer merely a means of documenting daily moments; they have become a witness present at the heart of events, revealing what the authorities or surveillance cameras may overlook. From incidents of harassment and thefts in public, to incidents of domestic violence and murders, videos have played a decisive role in turning crime into a matter of public opinion, and have forced the relevant authorities to act urgently.
In the face of this phenomenon, fundamental questions have arisen: why do citizens prefer posting on digital platforms instead of resorting to traditional legal channels? And how have these videos helped attract the attention of the relevant authorities and shed light on the crimes that take place on Egyptian streets?
In response to the growing spread of videos of a criminal nature on social media, the Public Prosecution called on citizens, in a statement it issued, to stop posting such videos and to limit themselves to sending them to the official channels. It explained that circulating these materials outside the legal framework not only harms the victims and their families, but also threatens the integrity of the course of investigations, gives the accused an opportunity to manipulate or influence public opinion, and may even expose those who post them to legal accountability.
The Public Prosecution had, since the beginning of last May, asked citizens to report content that may involve a legal offence through the number announced on its official pages across the various social media platforms. This comes within the framework of the initiative of the Public Prosecutor, Counsellor Mohamed Shawky.
Dr Fathi Kenawy, professor of crime detection at the National Center for Social and Criminological Research, explains what came in the Public Prosecution’s latest statement, saying that “posting excerpted clips of videos from criminal cases exposes investigations and victims to harm”.
He adds, speaking to Zawia3, that evidence must be complete, since relying on separate clips to build a narrative may lead to fabrications and stir confusion among the public. He believes that social media platforms sometimes contribute to distorting facts when they are used to post selected parts in order to achieve wide reach, whereas the correct path is to submit complaints to the competent authorities accompanied by the full video and supporting documents.
He concludes by stressing that protecting the course of justice and the rights of the accused and the victims requires a commitment to submitting evidence in full, and staying away from posting incomplete material on digital platforms.
The Case of Content Creator Adham Singer as an Example
Abdel Razek Mostafa, a lawyer and legal researcher, agrees with what the professor of social and criminal criminology said, explaining in his conversation with Zawia3 that the Public Prosecution’s statement on posting criminal videos does not mean refusing to receive evidence, but rather emphasises the need to submit it through official channels, in a way that guarantees the integrity of investigations and protects evidence from tampering.
He points out that the law requires a clear chain of custody for any criminal material in order for it to have evidentiary weight before the judiciary, while posting excerpted clips online may harm the case by alerting the accused or influencing witnesses and public opinion.
Mostafa adds that this position also has a rights dimension, as it protects the privacy and dignity of victims and prevents the circulation of painful scenes that may cause psychological harm to their families, in addition to the fact that the person who posts the video may face legal accountability under cybercrime laws if the posting involves an infringement of privacy or public morals. He concludes by saying: “Justice is not a commodity to be traded on social media platforms. The proper way to submit evidence is through the official channels that guarantee the integrity of the investigation and the confidentiality of proceedings and protect the rights of all parties.”
Mostafa’s remarks come in the context of a controversy stirred by the case of his client, content creator Adham Singer, who was subjected to an incident of insult, defamation and verbal assault, documented on video, on the Dahshur link road in Giza at the hands of a person who identified himself as a “judge”. Mostafa denied the rumours circulating on social media platforms that the prosecution had refused to receive the video clip. He explained that the prosecution asked the victim to submit the video clip himself during his questioning or through the channels designated for official reports.
Mostafa filed an official report with the Public Prosecution (No. 2551 of 2025, Sheikh Zayed First Administrative), in addition to a complaint before the Supreme Judicial Council and an appeal for help addressed to the Presidency against the person behind the incident, pending the outcome of the investigations.
Violence Against Women in Egypt: Missing Protection and Years of Setbacks
The Official Authorities?
Why do some citizens prefer to film incidents of assault and abuse and post them on social media rather than simply resorting to the official authorities? Human rights lawyer Aya Hamdy answers, speaking to Zawia3, that the complexity of crime patterns, the weak legal protection for witnesses and whistleblowers, and the fear of direct intervention in situations that may threaten an individual’s safety are all factors that push people to use their phone cameras as an alternative means of proof. Not all streets are equipped with surveillance cameras, and so the posted video becomes a tool that is hard to deny.
She points out that population growth and urban expansion have produced a variety of crimes that are no longer confined to the public space but have crept into the family itself, which makes the need for non-traditional means of proof more pressing.
For his part, Dr Saeed Sadek, professor of sociology, believes that the citizen’s role in uncovering crimes is essential, explaining that the police are not present everywhere, while documentation helps expose perpetrators and push the authorities to act, as happened in harassment cases. But he criticises what he described as “judicial leniency” in some of these cases, and points out that the lack of transparency in announcing the results of investigations and rulings makes citizens lose trust in institutions. He stresses that the media and social media platforms are not an adversary of the security authorities.
Sadek considers that posting crimes documented on video is not defamation but rather a means of assisting justice, and he pointed to experiences abroad such as “Community Watch” in the United States, where citizens cooperate with the police through cameras and by reporting any suspicious behaviour. The sociology professor concludes by saying: “What is required is not to prevent people from posting, but for the state to announce the results of investigations and the measures taken clearly, so that citizens feel that justice is strong and effective.”
As for lawyer Abdel Razek Mostafa, he believes that citizens bypassing official channels and resorting to posting on social media is due to multiple motives, most of them social and psychological. Some consider legal procedures slow and complicated, while immediate posting creates public pressure that speeds up the authorities’ response.
He adds that others seek reach and fame by turning the content into a “trend”, even if that comes at the expense of the legal or ethical dimension. On the other hand, this behaviour may sometimes stem from good intentions to document the crime, but it may harm the case or expose the person who posted it to accountability, because of what it may involve in terms of violating privacy or social norms. Mostafa believes that the prevalence of this pattern reflects a growing conviction that “public exposure” has become a form of social punishment and swift deterrence.
In this context, writer Omar Hazek agrees with the voices rejecting the filming of children and women because of the serious social and psychological harm it causes, but he points out, speaking to Zawia3, that families sometimes find no alternative but to post, in order to create public pressure that forces the relevant agencies to act. While some incidents are marginalised, others receive urgent follow-up simply because they have spread on social media.
Hazek believes that this phenomenon, at its core, reveals an accumulated crisis of trust between citizens and the authorities, as many believe that official reports do not receive sufficient attention unless they turn into a matter of public opinion.
In the end, the videos documented by citizens remain a double-edged sword: on the one hand, they are a means of pressure that has exposed numerous crimes and forces the authorities to act quickly and take the necessary immediate measures; on the other hand, a video clip may turn into an accusation that places the person who filmed it under legal accountability.
Between the Public Prosecution’s calls to adhere to official channels and citizens’ insistence on using their phones as an eye that watches and exposes, an accumulated crisis of trust between society and its institutions becomes apparent. Unless this gap is closed through transparency and the disclosure of the results of investigations and rulings, citizens will continue to resort to “digital justice” as a last resort, despite the warnings. The question then becomes: can the state restore the strength of the official legal channels and people’s trust in them, sparing them from resorting to small screens as an alternative arena of justice? Or will phones remain raised in everyone’s face?
