Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi ratified the new Criminal Procedure Code, after the House of Representatives approved, in its plenary session held on 16 October, most of the amendments required to overcome the reasons for the earlier presidential objection. The Official Gazette published Law No. 174 of 2025 (the Criminal Procedure Code) in issue No. 45 bis (d) on 12 November 2025.
The new amendments included postponing the entry into force of the law to the beginning of the judicial year following its issuance, on 1 October next year, to allow sufficient time to train law enforcement bodies and to equip the courts with the telephone notification centres provided for in the legislation. They also included referring the cases of those held in pretrial detention to the Public Prosecutor every three months, in implementation of a recommendation by the Supreme Standing Committee for Human Rights, instead of a single referral only as was the case in the previous draft law.
In addition, they included retaining the traditional means of notification in cases alongside electronic notification, so that dates and procedures are not disrupted when it is impossible to use technical means, and strengthening the guarantees of trials in absentia in felony cases, by obliging the court to postpone the appeal hearing once if the defendant or his lawyer is unable to attend, to allow the opportunity to exercise the right of defence.
Parliament gave final approval to the draft law after voting on the eight articles subject to the presidential reservation, among them Article (105), which allows a member of the Public Prosecution to interrogate the defendant without the presence of a lawyer in cases of “fear for his life and the lapse of time”. The Egyptian president’s decision to approve the law comes despite the continuing rights-related and political controversy around it, following the amendments approved by the House of Representatives in its emergency session held specifically to re-discuss the law after the president returned it to parliament.
The Bar Association Heads Towards a Challenge Before the Constitutional Court
The emergency parliamentary sessions held at the beginning of last October to discuss the proposed amendments to the law after it was returned by the presidency witnessed a state of controversy that the amendments introduced to those articles did not dispel. Although the House approved the amendments, the objections of some members of the House remained focused on Articles 48 and 105, which led some MPs to walk out during the session in protest at their passage. Rights-based criticism of the entire process also continued, particularly as the majority insisted on passing the law at an accelerated pace, despite calls to wait for the next parliament.
Article 48 provoked wide disagreement during and after the session, as its final wording allowed agents of public authority to enter homes in cases of a call for help or danger “and the like”, a phrase that some MPs considered loose and that may be used in a way that undermines the guarantee of the sanctity of homes.
The major crisis, however, was over Article 105, relating to the interrogation of the defendant without the presence of a lawyer when there is “fear of the lapse of time”. Some MPs and the head of the Bar Association considered that this wording explicitly contradicts Article 54 of the constitution, which requires the presence of a lawyer in any investigation, or the appointment of a lawyer in his absence. This prompted the MPs of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party to walk out of the session in protest.
For his part, Amr El-Khashab, a member of the Bar Association council, tells Zawia3 that the Bar Association is heading towards challenging the Criminal Procedure Code before the Constitutional Court, in implementation of the decision of the head of the association. El-Khashab explains that the association is still appealing to the President of the Republic to withdraw the amendments before they take effect, considering that they affect the right of defence and fundamentally undermine its guarantees. He adds that the association’s position is also based on the recent assurances by the president that there are problems in the electoral process, which El-Khashab considers “evidence that the president listens to the pulse of the street and reconsiders decisions marred by violations of the constitution and the law”.
The head of the Bar Association, Abdel Halim Allam, had renewed, during his intervention before parliament in the session discussing the amendments to the law on 16 October, the association’s objection to any amendment that introduces exceptions to Article 105, considering that this affects the essence of the defence guarantees stipulated in Article 54 of the constitution, which requires the presence of a lawyer with the defendant and prohibits investigation or interrogation in his absence. Allam stressed that “the amendment proposed by the government, and approved by the special committee, clashes in letter and spirit with the constitution and with the principles of justice”.
The head of the association explained that defining the objective at this stage “must be clear”, adding that Article 105 is closely linked to Article 54 and may not be infringed under any justification. He added: “We appreciate the effort parliament has made in preparing the law, but the final product is issued in the name of the Egyptian people, and therefore the guarantees of rights and freedoms established by the constitution may not be infringed.”
Allam pointed out that the special committee’s report was “contrary to what was stated in the President of the Republic’s memorandum, and did not take into account the recommendations of the General Committee of the House of Representatives”, stressing that the Bar Association did not agree to the introduction of any exception that would affect the essence of the constitutional guarantees.
The Last Chance
Despite the president’s official ratification of the law after the eight amendments were introduced to it, some legal and rights opinions still consider that the door has not been completely closed. There is still a “last chance” that can be used to reconsider the law or amend a number of its articles, whether through the mechanisms of constitutional challenge, or through the legislative paths that allow later amendments to be submitted again if the political will and sufficient societal pressure are available.
In this context, human rights lawyer Mamdouh Gamal, a member of the Towards a Fair Criminal Procedure Law campaign, considers, speaking to Zawia3, that the door is still open to a “last chance” to stop the application of the new Criminal Procedure Code, despite its official approval by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi.
According to Gamal, the period before the law comes into effect extends until October 2026, a transitional period that allows the current or the next parliament to reconsider the law in its entirety or to settle for amending specific articles of it, citing the precedent of the NGO law, which was repealed despite its issuance and official publication, after wide societal pressure.
Gamal stresses that the law in its current form represents a dangerous shift in the criminal justice system, and that objection to it is not limited to lawyers and human rights defenders, as a number of lawyers have already begun posting videos on social media platforms to warn of the catastrophic consequences expected once its application begins.
He points out that the coming crisis will not only be political or rights-related, but professional as well, given the wide clash the law may create between lawyers on the one hand, and the Public Prosecution and the judicial authority on the other.
Gamal warns that the state is not prepared with the infrastructure or technology needed to apply the “digitisation of justice” model provided for in the law, noting that most courts lack the minimum equipment that would make this transition possible. He stresses that averting the crisis requires all civil, rights and professional forces to join together at this stage, before the warnings in circulation turn into an actual reality.
Ahmed Mokhtar, a human rights lawyer at the Center for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance (CEWLA), agrees with human rights lawyer Mamdouh Gamal, and considers that the door is still open to reconsidering the Criminal Procedure Code before its application begins, scheduled for next October.
Mokhtar points out, speaking to Zawia3, that there is about a full year before application, which is enough time to make amendments or reconsider some articles, especially since there are “executive regulations” and procedures related to governance and to linking electronic services and communications that have not yet been completed, which may create opportunities for amendment.
Mokhtar adds that parliament will not amend laws on its own initiative unless an MP submits a new proposal and collects sufficient signatures for it, or the government submits a new draft law, or the president issues a decision to postpone the application or to reconsider the law.
The human rights lawyer points out that current indicators show that the government wants to apply the law according to a certain agenda, but popular and professional pressure may open the way for amendment, noting that “practical pressure”, that is, the problems that will emerge during application, represents an important means of pressure to bring about an amendment, and that the role of the Bar Association and of human rights defenders must be stronger to make clear that the law creates many crises for lawyers and citizens alike. Mokhtar concludes by saying that mobilising pressure on MPs and the government in a coordinated way could provide opportunities for amendment, even if the government or the president are adamant about applying the law.
Not the First Time
The trajectory of the NGO law in Egypt is one of the most prominent legislative precedents cited today when talking about the possibility of retreating from laws even after their official issuance, according to what human rights defender Hossam Bahgat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, explains. In May 2017 the President of the Republic ratified the law on NGOs, on the basis that it would come into effect after its executive regulations were issued within a year. However, the regulations were not issued, and the law did not enter into force.
In November 2018, the president himself announced, during one of the sessions of the World Youth Forum, his dissatisfaction with the law he had signed a year earlier, calling for it to be reconsidered and amended before its application. This came after domestic and international criticism of the law had mounted, and in July 2019 the House of Representatives passed a new law on NGOs, and the 2017 law, which the same House had previously approved and which had been published in the Official Gazette after the ratification of President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, was repealed. This precedent came to confirm that retreating from laws or replacing them is not a theoretical possibility, but a path that has actually materialised under the same political era.
Bahgat considers that the possibility of striking down or amending the “catastrophic” Criminal Procedure Code, as he describes it, which was recently issued, is not a theoretical hypothesis but a realisable possibility, and something similar has already happened under this rule, at one of the darkest moments in the record of repression over the past years.
The executive director of the Egyptian Initiative considers that the battle that has raged since this controversial bill was set in motion in the summer of last year until today must continue, not only because the law will not begin to be applied for a year, and not only out of professional and moral responsibility, but also in order to wrest whatever gains can be wrested, or at least to reduce the losses, or even to preserve what remains of a criminal justice system facing an imminent collapse that threatens everyone.
In this context, politician and human rights defender Mostafa Shawky tells Zawia3 that the objections the President of the Republic raised to the draft Criminal Procedure Code reveal deeper problems that go beyond the eight articles that were the subject of the remarks.
Shawky explains that the constitution does not oblige the President of the Republic to give the reasons for his objection when returning laws to parliament, which means that what the president wrote is not the totality of the objections, but rather part of the remarks on the wording that reached him. He adds that the articles to which the president directed his objections were linked to other articles within the law, and that amending them required amending the texts linked to them, which did not happen.
He points out that the president’s return of the law restores to parliament its “full jurisdiction” over the text, allowing it to amend any article, and not only the specific points of objection, stressing that the House chose to pass the same version with minor amendments “to avoid any clash with the institution of the presidency”, which preserved the problematic legislative philosophy of the law, and the articles that affect the guarantees of a fair trial, the rights of the defence, the periods of pretrial detention, and compensation and reparation.
Shawky adds that there is a “clear insistence” on passing the law before the end of the current legislative term, to avoid opening a wide societal debate that was expected to take place in the 2025 parliament had discussion of the law started from the beginning, including the professional syndicates, rights organisations and judicial bodies. In his view, “security considerations” played the biggest role in speeding up its passage, amid balances of power that give the security agencies great influence over the work of parliament.
Nevertheless, Shawky agrees with all the opinions that say there is an existing opportunity to reconsider the law before it enters into force in October 2026, whether through comprehensive or partial amendments submitted by MPs, or through a new legislative intervention that improves its guarantees. He concludes by saying that the real crisis lies in the dominance of the logic of “swift justice”, counter-terrorism and security considerations at the expense of guaranteeing rights and freedoms and protecting individuals from arbitrariness.
The Towards a Fair Criminal Procedure Law campaign and a number of human rights organisations and political parties had issued a statement after the law was issued, stating that the amendments the House introduced to some of the contested articles reveal a clear legislative confusion, whether with regard to when the law takes effect, the guarantees of a lawyer’s presence during interrogation, or the invention of the “placement” mechanism, which could in practice turn into a circumvention of the constitutional restrictions on pretrial detention.
The signatories of the statement warned that this methodology of legislating not only weakens the traditional guarantees of defendants’ rights, but threatens the entire structure of criminal justice, calling on the President of the Republic not to issue the law and to send it back to the Senate for a comprehensive review before it is put before the new House of Representatives. They stressed that issuing a law of this scale in a turbulent political climate threatens to turn it into a tool for undermining rights instead of strengthening them, and undermines public trust in the justice system.
Although the new Criminal Procedure Code has been officially issued amid wide rights-related and political controversy, some human rights defenders consider that the matter is settled and that the law may put the justice system in a real predicament. On the other hand, others stress that the opportunity still exists to reconsider some of its articles before it officially enters into application in October 2026. The question remains: will the president respond once again to the appeals of the ‘last chance’, or will the matter end in a real crisis in the justice system?
