President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi’s ratification of Egypt’s new Criminal Procedure Code has not ended the debate over its safeguards. Lawyers and rights advocates interviewed by Zawia3 argue that constitutional challenges and further legislation could still change the law before its scheduled implementation.
Law No. 174 of 2025 was published in the Official Gazette, issue 45 bis (D), on 12 November 2025, after parliament approved amendments on 16 October addressing the president’s earlier objections. The law is scheduled to take effect on 1 October 2026.
The intervening period was intended to allow training of enforcement agencies and preparation of courts for new notification arrangements. Amendments also required pretrial-detention cases to be submitted to the prosecutor general every three months, rather than only once as envisaged in the earlier bill.
Traditional service of court notices was retained alongside electronic notification, to avoid disruption where technology could not be used. Another amendment required a felony appeal hearing to be postponed once if the defendant or lawyer could not attend, providing an additional opportunity to exercise the right of defence.
Parliament voted on eight provisions covered by the presidential objections. The final wording of Article 105 generally requires a lawyer at interrogation and requires appointment of counsel where none attends. Its exception concerns a feared threat to the accused’s life and the need to establish the truth: the prosecutor must first request urgent appointment of a lawyer from the local Bar Association, but may proceed if counsel does not arrive at the designated time. Counsel who arrives before the interrogation ends may attend and inspect what occurred in their absence.
The published provision does not retain a separate, unrestricted “fear of losing time” exception. The debate over earlier wording should therefore be distinguished from criticism of the final text. Rights organisations, including the International Commission of Jurists, nevertheless continued to question the law’s protection of fair-trial rights.
The Bar Association seeks a constitutional challenge
The parliamentary debate did not resolve objections to Articles 48 and 105. Some MPs withdrew from the session in protest, while rights advocates criticised the speed of passage and called for the legislation to be left to the incoming parliament.
Article 48 allows public-authority personnel to enter homes in emergencies involving calls for help, dangers from fire or drowning, and comparable situations. Critics regard the open-ended final phrase as a potential threat to the protection of private homes.
The dispute over Article 105 centres on the exception to the presence of counsel. MPs and the Bar Association argued that exceptions conflict with Article 54 of the Constitution and its protection of access to a lawyer during investigation. Egyptian Social Democratic Party MPs withdrew from the session over their objections.
Amr al-Khashab, a Bar Association council member, tells Zawia3 that the association intends to challenge the code’s constitutionality under the direction of its president. He says the association continues to urge Sisi to reconsider the provisions before implementation because, in its assessment, they undermine the right of defence.
Al-Khashab links the appeal to the president’s recent comments on electoral problems, which he interprets as evidence that the presidency may reconsider decisions where constitutional and legal concerns are raised.
During parliament’s 16 October debate, Bar Association president Abdel-Halim Allam renewed his objection to any exception affecting the core safeguards associated with Article 105. He argued that the government’s proposed amendment, endorsed by the special parliamentary committee, conflicted with the Constitution and principles of justice.
Allam said the association respected the work put into drafting the code but insisted that legislation issued in the Egyptian people’s name must preserve constitutional rights and freedoms. He also said the committee’s report departed from the presidential memorandum and the recommendations of parliament’s general committee, and that the association had not accepted exceptions affecting constitutional protections.
A window for further legislation
Although the president ratified the code, the lawyers interviewed argue that further amendment remains possible. They identify both constitutional litigation and the legislative route as avenues for changing particular provisions, subject to legal procedures, political willingness and sustained public pressure.
Human rights lawyer Mamdouh Gamal, a member of the Towards a Fair Criminal Procedure Code campaign, describes the period before implementation as a final opportunity to reconsider the legislation. He says the current or incoming parliament could review the entire code or amend selected articles. He cites Egypt’s replacement of its 2017 civil-associations law as evidence that publication does not make a law politically irreversible.
Gamal regards the new code as a dangerous shift in criminal justice and says concern extends beyond established rights organisations. Some lawyers have begun publishing videos warning of the consequences they anticipate when it is applied.
He predicts professional conflict between lawyers, prosecutors and the judiciary, alongside the political and human rights dispute. He also questions whether courts have the equipment and technical infrastructure required for the legislation’s digital procedures.
He calls for coordinated work by civil, rights and professional groups before the problems they anticipate become realities.
Ahmed Mokhtar, a human rights lawyer with the Centre for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance, also sees room for reconsideration before the commencement date specified in the original law. At the time of the interview, he regarded the roughly year-long transition as sufficient for amendments and for resolving implementation arrangements involving electronic services and communications.
Mokhtar says parliament will not necessarily revisit the code without an initiative from MPs or the government. He also discusses possible presidential intervention. Any change to an enacted commencement provision, however, requires the appropriate legal instrument; an appeal to the presidency alone does not alter the statutory date.
He believes the government intends to implement the law, but public and professional pressure could open space for change. Practical difficulties emerging during implementation might also prompt amendments. He calls on lawyers and rights organisations to explain the problems they foresee for both the legal profession and the wider public, and to coordinate pressure on parliament and government.
A precedent in the associations law
Hossam Bahgat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, points to the legislative history of the civil-associations law. Sisi ratified Law No. 70 of 2017 in May that year, but its implementing regulations were not issued.
In November 2018, Sisi publicly called for reconsideration of the legislation amid domestic and international criticism. Parliament subsequently approved replacement legislation in July 2019, and Law No. 149 of 2019 repealed the 2017 law after presidential ratification and publication.
For Bahgat, that sequence demonstrates that replacement or amendment after ratification is more than a theoretical possibility. He describes the new Criminal Procedure Code as disastrous, but argues that continued opposition can still secure improvements, reduce harm or defend what remains of criminal-justice safeguards.
Bahgat argues that the campaign which began when the bill moved forward in the summer of 2024 should continue. In his assessment, the period before implementation offers a chance to preserve protections in a justice system he believes is approaching a dangerous collapse.
Politician and human rights advocate Mostafa Shawki tells Zawia3 that the presidential objections revealed problems extending beyond the eight provisions singled out for reconsideration.
He argues that the Constitution does not require the president to provide reasons when returning legislation to parliament. In his view, the memorandum therefore should not be treated as an exhaustive list of possible objections. The articles identified in it were connected to other provisions, he says, and changing them required corresponding amendments elsewhere.
Shawki maintains that parliament could have reconsidered the whole text after its return, rather than limiting itself to the specified objections. He believes the majority chose small changes to avoid confrontation with the presidency, leaving the code’s underlying approach and contested rules on fair trials, defence, pretrial detention, compensation and redress substantially intact.
He also believes the law was rushed through before the end of the parliamentary term to avoid a broader debate involving professional associations, rights organisations and judicial bodies in the incoming parliament. He attributes this to security priorities and the influence of security institutions.
Shawki nevertheless agrees that comprehensive or limited legislative amendments remained possible before the original commencement date. He argues that speed of justice, counterterrorism and security considerations should not override rights, freedoms and protection from arbitrary treatment.
A statement by the Towards a Fair Criminal Procedure Code campaign and other rights and political groups criticised inconsistencies in the revised bill, including commencement arrangements, counsel’s presence at interrogation and a new form of placement in custody that they feared could circumvent constitutional restrictions on pretrial detention.
Before ratification, the groups had urged the president not to issue the law and to return it to the Senate for comprehensive review before it went before the incoming House of Representatives. They warned that the legislation could undermine rights and public confidence in justice.
Ratification settled the bill’s passage into law, but it did not settle the professional and political disagreement about its safeguards. Advocates see the transition before October 2026 as an opportunity for further change. Whether those efforts can secure amendments remains an open question.
