In 2004, Al-Arabi Allam turned the chalet that his family had owned since before 2000 in Al-Firdous Village, west of Port Said, into a permanent residence for himself and his wife after they retired from the education sector. After giving their original home to their son so he could begin his married life, the couple had no choice but to settle in the summer chalet as their only refuge.
Al-Firdous Village lies on the Mediterranean coast, about five kilometers from downtown Port Said. It includes over 1,200 chalets, some used seasonally and others as permanent residences.
“We couldn’t afford to buy a new property for our son. We gave up our house for him and lived in the chalet. It wasn’t just a place to stay—it was everything we owned, the fruit of our lives and labor,” Allam told Zawia3, recalling the dawn of May 6, when security forces stormed the village and began carrying out sudden demolition orders.
While Allam and some residents were preparing for the dawn prayer, they noticed a heavy security presence near the adjacent village of Fayrouz (Diamond Blue). “We thought it had nothing to do with us—we are owners and occupants, and we have a pending court case regarding the eviction that hasn’t been decided yet,” he said.
But around 7:30 a.m., while Allam was getting ready to head to the job he had taken up after retirement to supplement his modest income, which does not exceed 3,500 pounds ($70) per month, the forces began moving toward the gates of Al-Firdous Village.
Through the mosque loudspeakers, one of the residents called on people to gather and confront the security move. About 40 men and 20 women who permanently lived in the chalets came out, trying to understand and stop what was happening. According to Allam, the scene was “shocking and humiliating: Central Security Forces, bulldozers, riot control formations, and the Port Said Security Director present in person… it was as if we were in a war zone, as if we were in Gaza, not in a residential village in Port Said.”
A Raid Without an Order
Allam went, along with his lawyer, to the security leadership on the morning of May 6, trying to delay the demolition until the court’s verdict, scheduled for May 18, after a previous session was postponed from May 4. But the surprise, according to his account, was that the forces did not present any official demolition decision or clear legal order to proceed. Although the residents asked to wait for the arrival of legal affairs officials, the forces began execution without compliance.
Allam recounted the scene in detail: “While some residents gathered at one of the closed gates, the security forces stormed the village from another side, using bulldozers and protected by formations of Central Security Forces equipped with batons and gas bombs. They started with the commercial stores—destroyed the shops—and didn’t give workers a chance to collect their belongings from the agricultural resthouses. Not even the gas storage depot was spared.”
Residents’ attempts to stop or even delay the demolition were met with total disregard, Allam said, adding that Tawkilat Club, which holds a final court ruling prohibiting any demolition, was also demolished. “It was as if they were telling us clearly: this law you’re clinging to means nothing to us.”
Allam confirmed that the eviction battle dates back to the tenure of former Governor Major General Adel Al-Ghadban, who previously demolished the village of Dahiyat Al-Gamil and then issued demolition decisions for Al-Firdous Village, claiming that its residents owed the governorate 36 million pounds ($720,000). Allam said: “We paid the full amount, and we have court rulings proving that we are owed 10 million pounds ($200,000) by the governorate that we haven’t received to this day. I negotiated with the relevant authorities, and there was hope for a settlement, but there was no genuine intent to listen.”
He continued: “While speaking with one of the officers, I was surprised by a force storming the chalet where I live with my wife, despite earlier promises not to touch inhabited homes. The forces did not abide by that; the demolitions included units inhabited by people, including my own chalet, which was damaged from the outside before the force entered and confiscated household furniture, including the living room set, without prior warning or explanation.”
Allam added in a trembling voice: “We cry day and night, my wife and I. Our life’s savings are gone. All we have left is a limited pension and a small salary from my side job. We don’t know where to go now. Why does the government insist on displacing us? What do we have left?” He ended his statement repeating: “God is sufficient for me, and He is the best disposer of affairs.”
The demolition operations in Al-Firdous Village come one year after a similar measure was carried out by Port Said Governorate in Dahiyat Al-Gamil Village, which included more than 400 residential properties housing about 2,500 families. These properties were built and inhabited with residents’ own money, based on official licenses issued by the governorate under a long-term usufruct system renewed annually.
These actions, as observed by Zawia3, raise fears of a recurring pattern in dealing with residential communities built under usufruct contracts, despite their occupants’ adherence to legal and financial conditions, including permits and payment of fees. This raises serious questions about the legal guarantees protecting ownership under this type of contract.
During the investigation, Zawia3 contacted seven residents of Al-Firdous Village, all of whom reported severe damage to their housing units and confiscation of their belongings without prior notice or official clarification. Al-Arabi Allam was not the only one harmed; other units were also affected, and the forces confiscated cars, equipment, microbuses, and private vehicles belonging to residents, in addition to possessions from locked chalets during the demolition, without notifying their owners who were outside of Port Said at the time.
Zawia3 also reviewed several receipts and documents confirming that residents had paid all required financial dues, whether to the Port Said Governorate or to public utility services for electricity and water.
Demolition Without Warning and Confiscation of Property
Nahla Mohsen, one of the homeowners in Al-Firdous Village in Port Said Governorate, was shocked to find that demolition had begun without any prior official notice to residents. She told Zawia3: “No one informed us of any demolition order. We found out on Wednesday morning through phone calls from residents still inside the village. We rushed over, only to be surprised that demolition was already underway, amid heavy security presence that included personnel and vehicles from the Central Security Forces.”
Mohsen added that the security forces prevented property owners from entering the village by car, forcing them to walk to their homes. “When we reached the chalet, the forces told us we had just three days to remove our belongings. We tried to collect everything we could and locked the unit, but demolition continued during that grace period at a rapid pace, with no distinction between inhabited chalets and those closed for summer use.”
According to her, some residents’ belongings were seized from inside the units without any clear legal basis, while the security forces cut off electricity, water, and gas to the entire village—even before the grace period had expired.
Mohsen estimated that Al-Firdous Village includes around 1,600 chalets, inhabited by a mix of permanent residents and seasonal visitors. She stated that the land was granted under a system of “open-ended usufruct,” which, according to the original contracts, does not expire unless the buildings are removed. Nonetheless, Port Said Governor Major General Adel Al-Ghadban informed residents in 2019 that the village owed 36 million pounds ($720,000) and claimed that the usufruct term was 25 years, which had expired.
“We responded as owners and collected the required amount from residents. We even added about 10 million pounds ($200,000), bringing the total to 45 million pounds ($900,000). We have official receipts proving this,” she said. “According to the agreement, the usufruct remains valid as long as the buildings stand. But we believe the state deliberately resorted to demolition to nullify that right legally.”
She added that residents shared via a WhatsApp group that MP Ahmed Al-Farghaly had contacted local officials regarding what was happening, and the reply he received was that “the matter is not in the hands of the governorate, but rather an implementation of higher orders.”
A court session was scheduled for May 18 to review official documents submitted by a number of residents who had issued legal powers of attorney to lawyer Hesham El-Eisawy, in hopes of halting the demolition orders and protecting the legal rights of property owners.
Legal Basis of Usufruct and Parliamentary Oversight
Under Article 985 of Egypt’s Civil Code, usufruct is recognized as one of the forms of property rights. It grants the usufructuary the right to use and benefit from someone else’s property, while the ownership of the property remains with the original owner. The law allows the usufructuary to receive the natural or civil returns of the asset, transfer the right to others, or mortgage it, without infringing on the original ownership. It stipulates that usufruct can only be terminated by a contractual agreement or a court ruling—not through physical demolition without legal grounds.
ollowing the beginning of the demolition operations in Al-Firdous Village, MP Ahmed Al-Farghaly, representative of Port Said in the House of Representatives, submitted an urgent request on May 6 to the Speaker of Parliament, directed to Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly, to question him regarding what he described as “illegal demolitions” carried out without prior notice or declared legal basis. This request was submitted under Article 134 of the Constitution and Article 215 of the House’s internal regulations.
Al-Farghaly told Zawia3 that Al-Firdous Village was allocated in 1994 under an open-ended usufruct system, in exchange for a specified rental fee paid to the governorate. He added that the owners, including individuals, state employees, and public entities, built the village’s units at their own expense, in addition to installing all necessary utilities.
Despite ongoing legal disputes between the owners and the governorate that have not yet been resolved, the MP said that the governorate proceeded—based on a decision issued by the Prime Minister—to enter the village, begin demolitions, and cut off water and electricity services, all without sending any official warning to the owners or clarifying the legal foundation for the action.
“What happened strikes at the core of the rule of law,” Al-Farghaly stated. “Respect for the law must be the government’s guiding principle before it is required from citizens. What happened in Al-Firdous Village—storming the area without announcement, without presenting any judicial ruling or legal order—constitutes a direct threat to the rule of law and sends a negative message to the public.”
In his urgent statement, Al-Farghaly called for discussing the issue in the next general session of Parliament and urged an investigation into the government procedures that accompanied the demolition. He also called for disclosing the legal and judicial documents on which the governorate or the government relied in implementing the demolitions, in order to safeguard the legal rights of owners, even if the demolition decision is eventually enforced.
From Allocation to Demolition Despite Ongoing Lawsuits
Official documents indicate that Al-Firdous Village was established in the 1990s by decision of the local council and the Port Said Governorate, in response to a housing crisis the city was experiencing at the time. The village’s land was allocated under an open-ended usufruct system, and beneficiaries began legal procedures to build, along with forming a homeowners’ association to manage the village’s affairs.
Lawyer Mohamed Mahmoud Safa, who has been following the legal case on behalf of the residents, told Zawia3 that the homeowners’ association had already started issuing ownership contracts for the units based on the usufruct system, without including any fixed term limiting the duration. However, the official stance later shifted when the governorate raised the issue of land price differences and formed a committee that concluded the usufruct should not exceed 25 years—a position Safa describes as a “blatant contradiction” of the original allocation decision.
He noted that the governorate subsequently demanded residents pay 34,000 pounds ($680) per unit, prompting residents to resort to the courts. A court-appointed expert valued the actual due amount at only 20,000 pounds ($400) per unit. Residents paid this full amount—and more—collecting additional funds totaling around 10 million pounds ($200,000), which were deposited into the governorate’s treasury, with no refund, deduction, or explanation of their fate to date.
Since 2019, according to Safa, the governorate began signaling its intention to terminate the usufruct system and floated the idea of demolition as part of what it described as “development plans.” This approach had already been applied in Dahiyat Al-Gamil, where similar demolitions occurred despite legal objections. Likewise, demolitions began in Al-Firdous Village, even though lawsuits remain pending in court, asserting that usufruct continues as long as the buildings still exist.
“How can the state begin demolition without waiting for a court ruling? Where is the respect for contracts and the Constitution?” Safa asked. “The government should have waited for the court’s decision instead of resorting to force against law-abiding citizens.”
He revealed that after the demolition of Dahiyat Al-Gamil, the governorate offered compensation of only 150,000 pounds ($3,000) per unit—an amount, he said, that “by no means reflects the market value of properties in the area,” especially amid a severe housing crisis in Port Said and a shortage of alternative units.
Safa concluded: “If the demolition is truly intended for a development or real estate project, the residents should be offered replacement units on the same site. But what’s happening now is the government acting from a position of power, not negotiation—and that approach is unacceptable. In any case, the Egyptian citizen deserves protection more than any investor.”
Zawia3 contacted Major General Mohib Habshi, the current Governor of Port Said, seeking an official response regarding the crisis in Al-Firdous Village and residents’ complaints about the demolition being carried out despite an unresolved legal case. As of the time of writing and publishing this investigation, the platform has not received any official reply from the governorate.
Civil Contracts and Court Rulings… Crushed Beneath the Bulldozers
The legal memorandum submitted in the lawsuit concerning Al-Firdous Village—filed by lawyer Hesham El-Eisawy on behalf of a group of residents and obtained by Zawia3—clarifies that the legal relationship between the Port Said Governorate and the owners of vacation units in the village, located at Kilometer 9 west of Port Said, was established through civil contracts titled “Ownership Contract and Usufruct Report.” These contracts, dated 1994, 1996, and 1997, contained unified clauses confirming ownership of the buildings only—not the land, which remained under the governorate’s authority, subject to its conditions for ownership or usufruct.
According to the memorandum, the then-Governor of Port Said authorized, through Decision No. 122 of 1989, Engineer Hossam El-Hadidi—a member of the project’s board and the village’s director—to sign these contracts. El-Hadidi later became head of the homeowners’ association, which was officially registered on November 15, 1995, under No. 5474 in the Real Estate Registration Authority. The association’s charter stated that its duration was indefinite and that it would dissolve only if the village ceased to exist, confirming each member’s ownership of their unit.
The memorandum notes that despite over two decades of legally recognized status, the governorate unilaterally formed a committee in 2000 that reinterpreted the usufruct term as 25 years, ending in 2019, in direct contradiction of the original contracts. Based on this reinterpretation, Governor’s Decrees No. 153 of 2020 and No. 95 of 2021 assigned a committee from the executive authority to manage the village instead of the homeowners’ association, citing the end of the usufruct term.
While Egypt’s High Administrative Court upheld these decrees, the rulings did not address the core civil nature of the contracts governing the buildings. This was confirmed by the civil court in Case No. 658 of 2021 (Port Said Civil Court), filed by the Shipping Agencies Workers’ Club, one of the village’s property owners. The court ruled that the relationship was civil in nature, invalidated the two administrative decrees, and affirmed the continued legitimacy of the homeowners’ association under the Unified Building Law. This ruling was upheld on appeal on February 6, 2024, and is now final and binding.
Nonetheless, the memorandum asserts that the Governor of Port Said ignored this final civil court ruling. He neither informed the Prime Minister of its reasoning nor acknowledged its existence. Instead, he proceeded to implement the previously overturned administrative decrees and launched a forced demolition campaign on the morning of May 6, 2025. Several buildings were demolished without prior notice, legal authorization, or judicial ruling.
In previous years, the governorate had imposed usufruct fees on the residents, collecting over 10 million pounds ($200,000), which remain held by the authorities without reimbursement or settlement. Residents were also led to believe they could regularize their status, encouraging further investment in their units and homes.
The memorandum highlights ongoing civil lawsuits, including Case No. 552 of 2025 (Port Said Civil Court), postponed to May 17, 2025, and Case No. 503 of 2025, filed by the homeowners’ association and postponed to May 18, 2025. These cases call for an end to the forced evictions and for the governorate to honor the civil contracts. If a public-interest project is to be established, the plaintiffs argue that proper expropriation procedures and fair compensation must be followed.
The memorandum cites a 1993 ruling by Egypt’s Constitutional Court (Case No. 130 of Judicial Year 5, February 6 session), which held that property ownership cannot be revoked except through the destruction of the asset. It also refers to established jurisprudence by the Court of Cassation, stating that administrative decisions affecting civil relationships do not qualify as administrative acts in the legal sense and therefore cannot override binding civil contracts.
From Urban Planning to Forced Removal
What happened in Al-Firdous Village cannot be isolated from a broader, recurring urban pattern witnessed in Egypt over the past decade: the removal of entire residential communities under the banner of “development,” often without fair guarantees or meaningful community participation. From Maspero Triangle to Warraq Island, and from Nazlet El-Samman to Manshiyet Nasser, the same dynamics repeat: high-value real estate expansion met with sudden or forced evictions, a lack of transparency, absence of negotiation, and compensation that falls well short of market value.
In Maspero, for instance, thousands of families were displaced in exchange for modest compensation or alternative housing in Al-Asmarat—despite widespread objections to the inadequacy of the alternatives. In Warraq, home to nearly 100,000 people, residents were offered 1,400 pounds per square meter ($28) compared to a market price of around 8,000 pounds ($160). Evictions there led to confrontations and the death of one resident. In Nazlet El-Samman, compensation was offered only after protests and arrests. In Manshiyet Nasser, authorities classified the area as “unsafe” to justify eviction—without presenting viable alternatives.
Within this context, the crisis in Al-Firdous appears to be part of a broader model that prioritizes administrative decrees and real estate expansion over constitutional housing rights and excludes residents from participating in decisions that shape their future. It raises pressing questions about the boundaries between development and justice.
Article 195 of Egypt’s 2019 amended Constitution states: “Decisions and rulings issued by the Supreme Constitutional Court shall be published in the Official Gazette. They are binding on all and have absolute authority over all state entities.” Article 35 guarantees: “Property is safeguarded and may not be infringed upon. It may not be expropriated except for public benefit and with fair compensation paid in advance.” Neither of these conditions, legal experts argue, was met in the cases of Al-Firdous or Dahiyat Al-Gamil.
Article 63 further prohibits forced and arbitrary displacement of citizens in all its forms, declaring any violation to be a crime that does not expire by statute of limitations. Article 9 mandates that the state ensure equal opportunity for all citizens without discrimination. According to the lawyers involved, demolishing the village for private investment constitutes discrimination against citizens—especially those from middle- and low-income backgrounds.
National Urban Planning vs. Local Displacement
The measures targeting Al-Firdous Village are part of a larger framework related to Presidential Decree No. 550 of 2019, which approved the creation of a new urban city named “West Port Said” on an area covering 3,075.38 feddans. The project, part of the national urban development plan, includes residential, industrial, and tourism zones. Under this decree, 462 feddans of land owned by the General Authority for Fish Resources Development were reallocated for the project as part of a redesign of the western area of Port Said.
However, these urban expansion plans were not accompanied by transparent procedures to regularize the status of current residents—chief among them, the homeowners of Al-Firdous Village, who possess notarized civil contracts dating back to the 1990s. No fair collective negotiations took place, nor were alternative housing options or fair compensation offered by the time of this report.
From Al-Firdous to Al-Gamil, from Warraq to Nazlet El-Samman, the same questions persist: Can urban planning be built on forced displacement? Are slogans about “public interest” enough to justify excluding local communities without dialogue or compensation?
Despite clear documentation, multiple legal testimonies, and ongoing lawsuits, the demolition of Al-Firdous Village began without any declared administrative order or legal warrant—openly disregarding the Constitution and Civil Code. The Port Said Governorate has remained officially silent up to the moment of publication.
The information gathered by Zawia3 from residents, their lawyers, and official documents points to a systemic pattern that mirrors the case of Dahiyat Al-Gamil: urban planning becoming a tool for dispossession, replacing usufruct rights with contracts terminated by unchecked administrative decisions.
While the court’s ruling is still pending and bulldozers continue to raze what remains, the fate of more than 1,200 families hangs in the balance—with no clear alternatives, no active legal recourse, and no official answers. The case of Al-Firdous remains a stark reflection of how “development” is currently enacted in Egypt.
