Last Sunday evening, an advertising screen at a shopping center on Faisal Street in Giza, Egypt, was hacked to display a video criticizing Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, in an unprecedented solo protest act in Egypt, which left many passersby in shock. Hours after the hacking incident on the advertising screen, the Egyptian Ministry of Interior announced the arrest of an “electronic screens technician” and accused him of posting offensive remarks against President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.
In a brief statement released on its official platforms last Tuesday, the ministry stated that the suspect “admitted to committing the act under the instigation of electronic committees managed by fugitive elements of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood abroad,” indicating that legal measures were being taken.
Zawia3 has learned that as of the writing of this report, the accused has not been presented to either the public prosecutor or the state security prosecutor, nor has he been investigated. Human rights lawyers and organizations working in the field of human rights defense have been unable to obtain his personal data or any information about him, while the Ministry of Interior has not released any details about him or the incident he is accused of planning and executing.
Article 54 of the Egyptian Constitution states: “Except in cases of flagrante delicto, no one may be arrested, searched, detained, or have their freedom restricted in any way except by a reasoned judicial order necessitated by an investigation.”
Human rights lawyer Mamdouh Gamal confirmed the absence of any information indicating the identity of the accused in the so-called “Faisal Screen” case, and that he has not yet been presented to any prosecution. He suggested that multiple charges could be directed at the accused during the investigation, including membership in an unlawful group as mentioned in the Ministry of Interior’s statement, in addition to spreading false news and disturbing public peace. He also expressed doubts about whether the announced suspect is the actual perpetrator.
Article 36 of the Penal Code stipulates that a judicial officer must immediately hear the statements of the detained suspect and, if not released, send them within twenty-four hours to the competent public prosecution. The public prosecution must then interrogate the suspect within twenty-four hours and order their arrest or release.
Interrogation Without Arrests
Authorities in Egypt moved to stop the video displayed on the hacked screen, while security forces quickly spread on Faisal Street to question several passersby and shop owners. After the incident spread on social media, rumors circulated that security forces had arrested several Sudanese and Egyptians in connection with the hacked screen. The Egyptian authorities, however, denied in a brief statement the detention of any Sudanese individuals in relation to what they described as offensive acts. Zawia3 contacted several non-governmental human rights organizations working on political prisoners and freedom of expression cases. All confirmed that they had not received any details or information about the arrest of Sudanese or Egyptians from Faisal Street. They also confirmed that no suspect had been presented to the prosecution in connection with the Faisal incident so far. This corroborates the Ministry of Interior’s announcement and refutes the claims made by the Egyptian Network for Human Rights on its Facebook page.
On Monday morning, just hours after the Faisal advertising screen hack and before the Ministry of Interior announced the suspect or conducted any investigations, citizens were surprised to see advertising screens across Cairo and Giza displaying images under the title “Lest We Forget the Crimes of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Human rights lawyer Yasser Saad noted that the Ministry of Interior’s statements often do not contain the truth about some incidents, the latest being the Faisal screen case, suggesting that the arrested individual may not be the actual perpetrator, as has happened in other cases where others were accused instead of the real culprits. Saad explained that the Ministry of Interior is not concerned with conducting thorough investigations to identify the real perpetrator as much as it is with randomly arresting any citizen and presenting them as a scapegoat to instill fear in society, so others would take heed, and the incident would not be repeated. The human rights lawyer added that there is no crime, whether by an Islamist or anyone else, except that the screen was hacked according to the Cybercrime Law, which is punishable by a fine, not imprisonment, for such a violation. However, this requires the actual screen owner to file a complaint for the damage done. He pointed out that what happened was merely an expression of opinion by a citizen through a public advertisement screen and that the content displayed did not incite immorality or any other content punishable by law. Often, the charges are fabricated rather than the law being applied. Saad concluded that accusing the Muslim Brotherhood is always used by the state as a scare tactic, but it has lost its impact in the face of the current political and economic situation.
In the same context, former MP Ziad Al-Alimi, who was released in 2022 by presidential pardon, posted on his Facebook page about the Ministry of Interior’s statement regarding the Faisal screen suspect. He noted that the statement reminded him of a friend he met during his imprisonment who was arrested in May 2020 and forced to film a video confession admitting to receiving funds from abroad for a Brotherhood conspiracy, which led to the closure of his production company.
Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that no person may be arrested or imprisoned except by an order from the competent authorities as stipulated by law, and they must be treated in a way that preserves their dignity and should not be physically or morally harmed. Article 41 states that “no one may be imprisoned except in designated prisons.”
In June 2017, Amnesty International published a report titled “The Story of a Confession Under Torture in Egypt,” revealing that Omar Mohamed, who was kidnapped from the street, was tortured to film a video that the armed forces later released, claiming it contained the confessions of the most dangerous terrorist cell. The military court relied on this video, sentencing him to life imprisonment in case number 174.
Similarly, the United Nations Committee Against Torture expressed concern about reports indicating that torture is routinely used to extract confessions, which are then used against defendants in court as evidence of their guilt. This was part of its 78th session, reviewing Egypt’s file on torture and other cruel treatment, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention Against Torture, which Egypt signed in 1987.
The Political Message of the Faisal Screen
Several activists and politicians considered the hacking of the Faisal screen a form of expressing opinion and opposition to the Egyptian president in an innovative and new way. They suggested that this act, which could be repeated in the future, resulted from the deteriorating political and economic situation in the country. Others, however, viewed the incident as an individual act with no political impact, warning that it could lead to a wave of arrests of innocent citizens.
No political party commented on the incident. When Zawia3 contacted a source within the Civil Movement, the source refused to comment, claiming the movement had not discussed the matter. Human rights and political researcher Mustafa Shawky considers the Faisal incident an individual act and a form of expression at a time when the Egyptian authorities have suppressed all platforms, including social media, and raised the cost of expressing opposing opinions. Consequently, it is natural to see forms of social resistance emerging to break the prevailing state. He added that with the suppression of politics, persecution of activists, and drying up all forms of organized social resistance in universities, unions, factories, and streets, a frightening void has been created, cutting off the accumulation of collective struggle for change. Most initiatives to express anger at the authorities and their policies are now individual, spontaneous, and seek the safest ways.
Responding to criticism of the incident due to fears of retaliatory actions by the authorities, Shawky argued that the blame should be directed at the perpetrator, not the victim. Additionally, random arrests in Egypt are a systematic and routine violation, where any citizen can be stopped, searched, and detained at any time. He concluded that hacking a public screen in a traffic or popular square and other non-violent resistance tactics that were discussed years before January contribute to breaking the fear and encouraging people to express their opinions and oppose the authorities in ways that suit them.
Economic and political researcher Zahdi El Shamy, chairman of the board of trustees of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, criticized the lack of information and transparency from the authorities about the incident and the accused. He stressed that despite the tight security grip imposed on the country for years, there will always be gaps exploited by citizens to express their opinions and anger. He criticized the panic used by security agencies to deter citizens from expressing their views, pointing out the Egyptian authorities’ exaggeration and insistence on closing all avenues for citizens to exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions. El Shamy insisted that there is a pent-up anger within Egyptian society and, as politicians and citizens, they are fully aware that people are suffering from poor economic conditions and bad policies that benefit a few businessmen at the expense of the citizens, which provokes and angers them. He expressed hope that the people would find safe and peaceful ways to express this anger to avoid a potential explosion.
