In the latest chapter of the ongoing controversy surrounding the Criminal Procedures Law, the first meeting of the parliamentary committee tasked with discussing the proposed amendments witnessed a sharp division among members. The split prompted three MPs, along with representatives of the Bar Association, to withdraw from the session in protest against the government’s insistence—represented by the Ministry of Justice—on amending Article 105 of the draft law. The amendment would allow the Public Prosecution to interrogate defendants without their lawyers present, a provision that both the withdrawing MPs and the head of the Bar Association consider unconstitutional.
The 13-member committee, which convened for the first time last Saturday, was evenly split in its vote on the amendment: six members supported it and six opposed. The matter was settled by the committee’s chair, Counselor Ahmed Saad El-Din, who also serves as the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, using his casting vote to approve the amendment.
Legal and parliamentary experts interviewed by Zawia3 expressed pessimism about the direction of the parliamentary discussions regarding the draft Criminal Procedures Law. They believe that what is happening inside Parliament “does not reflect the spirit of the presidential objections” that had returned the law for review last September.
Although the President objected to eight key articles in the bill, the government—represented by the Ministry of Justice—continues to insist on passing several contentious formulations. Chief among them is Article 105, which allows the investigating authority to question a defendant in the absence of their lawyer “if it deems that urgency serves the interest of the investigation,” merely requiring that the justification for such urgency be recorded in the investigation report.
Experts describe this article as “a stab at the very heart of the constitutional right to defense,” arguing that it empties the guarantees of justice of their essence and explicitly contradicts Article 54 of the Egyptian Constitution. That article clearly stipulates: “No investigation may begin with a defendant except in the presence of their lawyer. If the defendant has no lawyer, one shall be appointed, with the necessary assistance provided to persons with disabilities in accordance with the law.”
Specialists see this discrepancy between the two texts not as a mere legal disagreement, but as a clash over the very philosophy of justice—between a constitutional vision that protects the defendant and their rights, and an administrative tendency that seeks to expand the powers of investigation, even at the expense of citizens’ constitutional rights.
Commenting on this, Dr. Maha Abdel Nasser, a member of Parliament representing the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, stated that she withdrew from the subcommittee discussing the draft Criminal Procedures Law in protest against the approval of Article 105, which she considered a flagrant violation of the principles of justice and defendants’ rights. In a statement to Zawia3, she explains that the article grants extensive powers to the Public Prosecution in matters of investigation and pretrial detention, undermining fair trial guarantees and threatening the right to defense. She stresses that her stance reflects her commitment to safeguarding constitutional principles and justice, and to preventing any regression from the legal and human rights gains enshrined in the Constitution.
A Clear Violation of the Constitution
Lawyer Nasser Amin, head of the Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, tells Zawia3 that the President’s decision to return the draft Criminal Procedures Law to Parliament marks a decisive moment for justice in Egypt. He criticizes the government—represented by the Ministry of Justice—for continuing to push forward with the approval of several liberty-restricting provisions that contradict the Constitution. Amin stresses that Article 105, the center of the current dispute, along with other articles that allow the Public Prosecution to proceed with investigations in the absence of a defendant’s lawyer, constitutes a direct violation of constitutional guarantees and defendants’ rights. He notes that this article is among the eight contested provisions listed in the President’s memorandum of objections and represents the core of the current conflict, since it permits the prosecution to interrogate defendants without their lawyers, which he describes as a “direct infringement of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Amin explains that this violation is not merely a procedural loophole but rather an assault on the fundamental principles of justice, including the right to defense and the presumption of innocence. He calls for the amendment of the article to ensure the presence of a lawyer at all stages of interrogation and urges Parliament to correct similar flaws within other provisions. He also demands a full review of all articles that may undermine defendants’ rights, weaken the justice and litigation system, or conflict with human rights principles.
Amin emphasizes the need to revisit all provisions that restrict liberties and rights in the law, noting that the Arab Center has already recorded numerous objections—ten major ones in total. He recalls that last April, the Center rejected the entire package of amendments introduced to the law, describing its articles as having “stripped citizens of their constitutional and legal rights to a fair and impartial trial in line with relevant international standards, from the moment of arrest through investigation, trial, and appeal.” He adds that the law also neglected essential safeguards concerning home and personal searches, as well as the interception of private messages and communications.
Amin further highlights the importance of revisiting all articles cited in the presidential memorandum of objections, including those related to the inviolability of private homes, defendants’ guarantees at every stage of trial, the expansion of alternatives to pretrial detention, and the elimination of any ambiguity in legal wording. He stresses the need for clarity, practicality, and sufficient time for ministries and relevant bodies to implement the newly introduced mechanisms and models.
Why Do Some MPs Reject Reopening the Debate on the Law?
Dr. Freddy El-Bayadi, Member of Parliament representing the Egyptian Social Democratic Party and the party’s vice president, tells Zawia3 that some within Parliament believe that reopening discussions on the draft Criminal Procedures Law undermines the efforts made by MPs over the 28 months spent deliberating and approving it. However, he personally disagrees, arguing that introducing further amendments does not diminish the extensive work already accomplished by the committee and the Parliament. On the contrary, he believes such revisions provide an opportunity to improve and refine the law, ensuring a more coherent and comprehensive version. Even if these amendments take longer to finalize, he says, this does not weaken the achievement but instead reflects Parliament’s commitment to enacting a solid and just piece of legislation.
El-Bayadi notes that the discussions surrounding the draft Criminal Procedures Law inside Parliament were marked by intense debates and ongoing disputes. Efforts to amend or reject the law faced significant obstacles due to the dominance of the majority vote, leading him to describe the experience at times as “fighting windmills.” He affirms that the President’s recent decision to return the law to Parliament without ratifying it serves as living proof that the opposition’s efforts were not in vain and that their reservations and remarks were indeed heard.
He stresses the importance of revisiting the articles that were subject to presidential commentary, especially those linked to other provisions. There is no harm, he says, in reopening these articles for review. Even if the revisions are not completed during the current parliamentary term, referring them to the next Parliament should not be seen as a loss of effort, but rather as an opportunity to ensure that the law is issued in a more refined form that truly serves the justice system.
He continues: “As for the argument of urgency—that the law would help release a large number of prisoners—this requires careful assessment. It is true that some cases justify ending pretrial detention, but it is equally important to ensure that haste does not weaken the law’s strength or create loopholes that reduce its effectiveness. Ultimately, the law must serve as a second constitutional reference for the state: strong, fair, and supportive of the judicial system without gaps.”
The deputy head of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party also points out that his party was the only political bloc to reject the law in its entirety, having exhausted every possible parliamentary and political avenue. These efforts included proposing amendments to the articles, applying political pressure, cooperating with civil society organizations and human rights experts, and engaging with various political actors. He adds that the purpose of all these efforts was not obstructionism, but rather to produce a version of the law that protects defendants’ rights and ensures criminal justice, free of loopholes or excessive powers granted to the Public Prosecution at the expense of the right to defense.
What Are the President’s Main Objections?
President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s objections centered on several key issues. First, he proposed that the law should take effect with the opening of the new judicial year on October 1, 2026, rather than immediately upon its publication in the Official Gazette. This, he argued, is necessary because the law requires the establishment and proper preparation of telephone notification centers under the Ministry of Justice across more than 280 district courts nationwide.
The objections also pointed to the absence of a clear definition of the “danger” that permits entry into private residences under Article 48 of the law, a gap that could open the door to broad interpretations undermining the constitutional protection of home privacy. Another major concern was the inconsistency between the procedures for interrogating defendants in urgent circumstances under Article 105 and those outlined in Article 64 of the same draft, which does not grant the Public Prosecution the same powers as law enforcement officers in certain cases.
El-Sisi’s memorandum further raised concerns about Article 112, which allows for the detention of defendants in certain cases without setting a maximum duration or requiring a justified judicial order, thereby infringing upon personal freedom guarantees. It also addressed Article 114, which limits pretrial detention alternatives to only three options, without introducing additional measures that could provide greater flexibility for investigative authorities.
The objections extended to Article 123, which stipulates that the defendant’s file be submitted to the Public Prosecutor only once during the entire period of pretrial detention, rather than periodically every three months as recommended by the Permanent Supreme Committee for Human Rights.
They also included Article 231, emphasizing the need to specify that, in the event of electronic notification failure, authorities must revert to traditional methods of service, with mandatory notification within 24 hours. Finally, the President objected to Article 411, which requires the court to appoint a lawyer in the absence of the defendant or their representative during appeal proceedings, without granting the defendant the opportunity to attend—an approach that contradicts the fundamental right to defense and the presumption of innocence.
In contrast, the President’s objections did not address the articles that grant judges the authority to confiscate mobile phones and electronic devices, monitor websites, or record communications when required for investigations, nor those that allow surveillance of devices and accounts in cases involving damage to public property, state interests, or defamation via phone calls.
Lawyers Syndicate
The Egyptian Bar Association issued a strongly worded statement following a joint meeting between the General Bar Council and the heads of the local branches, chaired by Abdel Halim Allam, the Syndicate’s president and head of the Arab Lawyers Union. The meeting addressed the association’s position on the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedures Law and placed it in direct confrontation with the Ministry of Justice and the Parliament’s special committee. The statement accused both entities of “distorting” the substance of the President’s objections to several articles of the draft law—chief among them Article 105, which regulates the presence of a lawyer during a defendant’s interrogation or confrontation. The syndicate described this article as the “safety valve for the right to defense” and a cornerstone of criminal justice guarantees.
According to the statement, the Bar Association welcomed with respect the President’s memorandum objecting to eight articles out of the law’s total 552, viewing the step as evidence of the political leadership’s commitment to scrutinizing provisions that affect the justice system and defendants’ guarantees. However, the syndicate expressed its “shock” at what it called the “deviation of the Ministry of Justice and the parliamentary committee from the essence of the presidential objections,” through the introduction of new formulations that “contradict the Constitution and strip the amendments of their intended reformist content.”
The statement stressed that the amendments proposed in Parliament represent a serious regression from the philosophy of the right to defense, as they allow investigators to question defendants without the presence of a lawyer—an explicit violation of Article 54 of the Constitution, which clearly stipulates that no interrogation may begin without the defendant’s lawyer present, and that a lawyer must be appointed if the defendant does not have one. The new phrasing, the statement warned, “opens the door to extraordinary and unrestricted powers for investigators,” threatening the rule of law and undermining the essence of justice.
The Bar Association, describing itself as a constitutional partner in upholding justice and safeguarding rights and freedoms, said it followed the parliamentary committee’s discussions with grave concern. It argued that the proceedings revealed “a persistent intent to erode the role of the defense and curtail constitutional guarantees.” The statement further asserted that what took place “challenges the will of the political leadership and the conscience of the nation,” reflecting an attempt to strip the law of its constitutional foundations.
In a clear act of protest, the statement disclosed that the head of the Bar Association withdrew from the committee’s sessions after officially recording his objections in the parliamentary transcript, describing his withdrawal as “an act of alignment with the rule of law and an exposure of attempts to pass provisions that infringe upon hard-earned freedoms.” The syndicate characterized this move as “a strong message rejecting any tampering with justice and the dignity of Egyptian citizens.”
The statement concluded by affirming that the Bar Association “will not remain silent in the face of any violation of the right to defense” and will employ all available legal and constitutional measures to counter any attempt to undermine the rule of law. It also reiterated its commitment to supporting the issuance of a new Criminal Procedures Law “only after correcting the defects” it had identified in its earlier memoranda submitted over the past year.
Journalists Join the Frontline
For his part, Khaled El-Balshy, head of the Journalists’ Syndicate, announced his full solidarity with the statement issued by the Bar Association, which rejected any deviation from constitutional guarantees in the draft Criminal Procedures Law—particularly the latest amendment to Article 105 concerning the right to defense. El-Balshy described the amendment as a new constitutional violation and a retreat from the philosophy underlying the President’s objections and his directives to strengthen guarantees that safeguard defendants’ rights.
In a post on his Facebook page on Monday, El-Balshy explained that his stance aligns with the Journalists’ Syndicate’s consistent position on the law, which he described as the cornerstone of Egypt’s justice system and its practical constitution that protects individual rights and freedoms. He emphasized the need for the law to be enacted free of any constitutional flaws, ensuring greater legal protection for citizens at all stages of litigation. He warned that any breach of these guarantees would undermine public trust in the entire justice system.
Commenting on Article 105, El-Balshy stressed that the article’s original text required the presence of a lawyer during the defendant’s interrogation or confrontation with other defendants or witnesses—an approach fully consistent with the constitutional safeguard enshrined in Article 54 of the Constitution. However, he noted that the proposed amendment clearly contradicts both the constitutional text and the principles underpinning the President’s objections, arguing that it effectively empties the provision of its intended support for the right to defense.
El-Balshy added that the new amendment fails to address the existing loopholes in Article 64 of the draft, which had already weakened defendants’ rights. Instead of correcting these flaws, he said, the changes have veered toward reducing constitutional safeguards and undermining the role of the defense during the investigation phase. He described this direction as an incomprehensible attempt to erode the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The head of the Journalists’ Syndicate asserted that the draft Criminal Procedures Law is not solely the concern of those working within the justice system but a matter of public interest that affects every citizen and every institution concerned with rights and freedoms. He described it as “Egypt’s constitution of justice.” From this perspective, he declared his support—both as syndicate president and as an individual—for the Bar Association’s legitimate demands in this matter. He stressed that any infringement upon the right to defense or attempt to strip the law of its role in protecting freedoms constitutes a clear violation of the Constitution and a weakening of the rule of law.
El-Balshy stated: “My solidarity with the Bar Association in this pivotal case is a defense of the principles of justice and equality that must prevail in our country, and of every citizen’s right to a fair and impartial trial.”
He concluded by emphasizing that the President’s decision to return the law for further review, along with the objections raised by MPs and lawyers and the postponement of the law’s implementation until the beginning of the next judicial year, necessitates careful reconsideration of the entire draft, including its overall philosophy. He called for a thorough review of the observations submitted by various official and civil entities—including the Journalists’ Syndicate, the National Council for Human Rights, and the National Dialogue—while urging openness to the adoption of international standards that ensure fair trials and uphold rights and freedoms.
A Philosophy Reflecting a Security-Oriented Approach
In a related context, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) stated that the draft Criminal Procedures Law passed by Parliament in April represents a serious setback for Egypt’s justice system. The organization argued that Parliament ignored, for an entire year, all legal and societal objections that called for postponing its discussion and expanding public participation in its drafting. EIPR emphasized that President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s decision on September 21 to return the law to Parliament offers a rare opportunity to reconsider not just a few articles, but the entire legislative philosophy. This, the organization said, is essential to achieving both political and societal consensus on a law that constitutes the backbone of Egypt’s criminal justice system and a vital complement to the Constitution.
EIPR explained that the core problem does not lie merely in flawed or insufficiently safeguarded articles, but in the very philosophy underpinning the law, which reflects a political and security-driven desire to codify existing conditions and institutionalize violations and imbalances that have afflicted Egypt’s criminal justice system over the past years. Instead of reinforcing fair trial guarantees and protecting litigants’ rights, the draft law expands the powers of the Public Prosecution and law enforcement officers at the expense of defendants and their counsel. This, EIPR said, disregards the constitutional principle of “presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” marking a regression from one of the most significant legislative gains achieved since the original Criminal Procedures Law was enacted in 1950.
The organization highlighted that the most controversial provisions are those granting the Public Prosecution unchecked authority—such as Article 116, which allows surveillance of communications, and Article 105, concerning prosecutorial powers during investigation. It also pointed to provisions that restrict defendants’ right to communicate with their lawyers or allow remote court sessions to be held inside prisons, in violation of fair trial standards.
EIPR called for the upcoming amendments to serve as an opportunity to restore balance between the powers of prosecution and defense, ensuring defendants’ right to a public trial within a reasonable timeframe, and abolishing all provisions that turn exceptions into norms—such as the extension of pretrial detention and restrictions on appealing prosecution decisions. The organization stressed that the ultimate goal of any new law must be to improve existing conditions, not entrench them.
Minister of Justice Between Presidential Objections and a Last-Minute Reversal
In a development that revealed confusion within Egypt’s legislative decision-making circles, Minister of Justice Counselor Adnan Fangary sparked widespread controversy under the parliamentary dome after initially objecting to some of President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s proposed amendments to the draft Criminal Procedures Law—before later backtracking and declaring his full support for the President’s remarks. The minister’s shifting position raised questions about the government’s seriousness in reviewing the highly contentious law.
During a parliamentary session held in late September to discuss the presidential objections, the Minister of Justice initially insisted that the draft law, in its version approved by Parliament in April, was “sufficient” in terms of safeguards. He argued that introducing new alternatives to pretrial detention, such as electronic monitoring or broader judicial supervision, would require logistical and technical capacities that are currently unavailable.
The minister’s comments triggered a wave of criticism, particularly as they appeared to contradict the President’s own reservations about the law. In a subsequent session, Speaker of Parliament Counselor Hanafy Gebaly intervened, posing a direct question to the minister: “Do you still stand by your previous position?” Fangary responded with a single word: “No.” Shortly afterward, the Ministry of Justice issued a statement asserting that the minister had not rejected the President’s directives and that his earlier remarks had been “taken out of context.”
Nonetheless, observers viewed the incident as damaging to the government’s public image and indicative of a silent power struggle within the state—between one faction seeking to entrench the authority of the Public Prosecution and restrict the scope of defense rights, and another advocating gradual reforms that strike a balance between security imperatives and justice guarantees.
As the controversy over the draft Criminal Procedures Law intensifies, the broader picture appears clear: a Parliament pressing ahead with the passage of contentious provisions despite presidential objections and opposition from political and professional forces. This raises pressing questions about the balance between legislative authority, justice safeguards, and constitutional freedoms. The ongoing tension surrounding Article 105 and other key provisions reflects a deeper struggle over the very philosophy of justice in Egypt—between a tendency to expand prosecutorial powers, even at the expense of defendants’ rights, and an opposing vision seeking to preserve fundamental constitutional guarantees, including the right to counsel and a fair defense.
