More than five decades after the issuance of the Journalists Syndicate Law No. 76 of 1970, some of its articles still stir controversy, as they are no longer suited to the reality of journalism in Egypt and to the changes that have taken place in the labour market and in workers’ rights. While journalistic practice is expanding outside traditional institutions, and the numbers of journalists who are precariously employed or unrecognised are growing, the articles of the law, and in particular Article 97, continue to reproduce a broad exclusion of an entire category of the profession’s pioneers, depriving them of the right to work after retirement and of the right to vote and stand for election within their syndicate, and permanently severing their link to the register of practising journalists.
This exclusion does not stop at the limits of age or employment status, but extends to the mechanisms of registration, the allowance, retirement and extension, so that the syndicate, by force of law, turns from a common home for journalists into an institution that divides them according to criteria that no longer reflect the reality of the profession or the needs of those working in it, as described by retired journalists who spoke to us. And while demands are mounting for legislative reform that would restore the standing of retired journalists and guarantee fairness in pensions and syndicate rights, the current law remains a stumbling block to developing syndicate life and to genuine representation of journalists.
A journalist is usually able to work throughout their life, while the syndicate’s bylaws stipulate that a journalist does not retire before reaching sixty-five; nevertheless, this provision is not applied, as journalists are pensioned off at the age of sixty in most institutions, and a phase of suffering then begins for them that depends on luck: either a renewal, a zero contract, or a complete break from work, as explained by retired photojournalist Hisham El-Masry, who points to the spread of what is known as the “zero contract”, a measure some institutions resort to in order to inform the syndicate that the journalist is still working, even though he receives no wage, or receives a symbolic minimum amount in return, which allows the journalist to remain on the register of practising journalists and to receive the full journalism allowance instead of the syndicate pension; but only a limited number of press institutions offer this type of contract.
He tells Zawia3: “In principle, the journalism allowance should be equal to the pension and of the same value, whether the journalist is working or not, and this matter branches into two parts: the first concerns what institutions provide to the journalist while he is working and how he is treated, and the second relates to his right to receive a full allowance if he is no longer able to work, in recognition of his long years of service.”
El-Masry criticises linking the value of the pension to the number of years of membership or the percentage set for the pension, arguing that many journalists joined the syndicate late and are therefore deprived of the full pension, and questioning why there is a large gap between the monetary value of the technology allowance (EGP 4,500) and the pension (EGP 3,000), and why they are not equal, especially since a journalist after the age of sixty usually faces health problems that require high treatment costs, in addition to family obligations that may continue, while state pensions remain meagre and out of step with the rates of rising prices and inflation.
He adds: “Combining the syndicate pension with the government pension is still not enough. The syndicate provides support for medical examinations and tests, but health insurance does not cover imported medicines, which forces journalists to bear exorbitant treatment costs. The national press institutions often refuse to provide treatment for their employees after they retire, with the exception of some bodies that cover treatment in full or at a certain percentage.”
He calls for allowing optional continued contribution to the Solidarity Fund until the age of sixty-five, on the basis that the bylaws themselves link the retirement age to the age of sixty-five, since continued contribution brings a cumulative benefit to journalists and to the syndicate alike, and there is nothing to justify stopping it at the age of sixty, as well as for equalising the allowance with the pension, adding that “the latest increase in the value of the technology allowance was reasonable, but the increase in the pension was much lower than expected, and the minimum wage was not applied to journalists while they were working.”
The retired photojournalist stresses that the right to vote in syndicate elections and to take part in the general assembly is an inherent right of all journalists that should not be confiscated from members of the pensions register, given that the decisions of the syndicate council affect journalists throughout their lives, whether they are working or not, considering it illogical to exclude a journalist from voting while he is still a member who benefits from the syndicate’s services or is harmed by its decisions.
El-Masry believes that only some articles of the law need amending, not the entire law, as amendment runs up against obstacles linked to government intervention on the financial side, explaining that Journalists Syndicate head Khaled El-Balshy has previously demanded that a journalist receive the allowance throughout his life as a pension, but the government mostly does not respond to these demands.
Article 97 of Law No. 76 of 1970 establishing the Journalists Syndicate, issued by former president Gamal Abdel Nasser on 10 September 1970, stipulates that “the payment of a retirement pension entails that the journalist shall not engage in any journalistic work, and his name shall be permanently transferred from the register of practising journalists to the register of non-practising journalists, and a journalist may not, after obtaining a retirement pension, request the re-registration of his name in the register of practising journalists”.
Article 32, meanwhile, stipulates that the general assembly shall be composed of the members registered in the register of practising journalists who have paid the membership fees due from them up to the end of the concluded financial year, or who have been exempted from them. According to Article 33 of the law, the general assembly is competent to consider and approve the syndicate council’s report on the work of the concluded year, to approve the final accounts of the concluded financial year, to approve the draft budget for the coming financial year, to elect the head of the syndicate and the members of the syndicate council, to approve the draft internal bylaws of the syndicate and its branches, to approve the code of ethics of the journalistic profession and amend it, to establish a system of pensions and subsidies, and to consider matters of concern to the syndicate that the syndicate council sees fit to present to the general assembly.
The retired journalist Mohamed Shawky Salama describes (Article 97) as executing the journalist who is pensioned off, since extension of employment contracts is not mandatory, calling for a search for a formula acceptable to employers and journalists that would make extension obligatory, as is the case for university professors and judges.
He tells Zawia3: “The law prevents standing for election, voting and moving back to the register of practising journalists if the journalist finds suitable work after obtaining a retirement pension. Although the law does not prevent a journalist from working in absolute terms, it prevents him from working as an editor-in-chief, because it requires him to be a member of the practising register, to which he cannot return after being pensioned off.”
The retired journalist sees a need to open a dialogue among all the parties concerned, namely the members of the Journalists Syndicate’s general assembly, pensioners and employers, and to study the matter well before moving to change the law, considering that Law 76 of 1970 is outdated and should be changed entirely. He also believes that journalists’ pensions, which amount to about EGP 3,000, are the best among the syndicates, but are still insufficient, so the syndicate’s resources must be increased through legislative measures that set out the mechanisms for increases in the allowance and pensions.
Under Article 94, a journalist is entitled to the full pension on reaching the age of sixty, and “death or total incapacity to practise the profession shall be considered equivalent to reaching the said age, provided that his name is registered in the register of practising journalists, that he has paid the membership fees due from him unless he has been exempted from them by a decision of the syndicate council, and after the passage of 25 years, continuous or interrupted, including the training period, since his registration in the register of practising journalists”. In July 2023, the Journalists Syndicate council decided to increase the syndicate pension by EGP 500 to reach EGP 3,000, with the increase to be applied from the same financial year.
900 Retired Journalists Harmed by the Law
In the same context, Hamed Zehni, vice-president of the Association of the Profession’s Pioneers at the Journalists Syndicate, expresses his strong discontent at the continued application of Article 97 of the Journalists Syndicate Law, stressing that it excludes journalists who have been pensioned off and deprives them of their basic rights within the syndicate, foremost among them the right to vote and to take part in choosing the head of the syndicate and the council members. This situation completely contradicts the nature of the syndicate as “the syndicate of opinion”, while the law allows a retired journalist to vote in general and presidential elections but deprives him of voting within his own syndicate.
Zehni explains that the general assembly approved in 2023 granting the syndicate council a mandate to submit a proposal to amend the syndicate law, but the council has not taken any step in this direction, stressing that depriving the profession’s pioneers of the vote is in itself a form of restricting freedoms, and that the continued application of the current article makes the profession’s pioneers a group without weight within their syndicate. He criticises the persistence of “zero contracts”, which enable some retired journalists to receive the technology allowance despite not actually practising the work, and which undermine fairness within the syndicate.
He tells Zawia3: “The profession’s pioneers represent a large voting bloc numbering about 900 retired journalists, and we receive promises from candidates for the syndicate council from time to time that are not carried out. The association has indeed begun taking new legal steps, and has formally written to the President of the Republic to present the problems of the profession’s pioneers, and we are preparing to send another letter in the coming days.”
Zehni believes it is easy to amend Article 97 because it concerns the internal affairs of the syndicate, and the council can do so, pointing out that the pensions the syndicate pays to retired journalists have not seen any increase since last July, despite the continuous rise in the cost of living, and pledging that the Association of the Profession’s Pioneers will continue to press for amending the law and increasing pensions, after long years of marginalisation within the syndicate.
The Supreme Constitutional Court had considered case No. 44 of judicial year 36 (Constitutional), filed by the head of the Pensioners’ Association at the Journalists Syndicate, seeking a ruling that the first paragraph of Article 32 and Article 97 of Law No. 76 of 1970 establishing the Journalists Syndicate are unconstitutional, because they prevent a journalist from practising his work after being pensioned off at retirement age, as well as from combining the allowance and the pension, in addition to infringing on freedom of opinion and expression and the citizen’s right to work.
In April 2021, the Supreme Constitutional Court, headed by Counsellor Saeed Marei, ruled that the litigation had ended in the case seeking a ruling that the first paragraph of Article 32 and Article 97 of Law No. 76 of 1970 establishing the Journalists Syndicate are unconstitutional, with regard to pensions under the law. Abandonment of the litigation entails the cancellation of all its procedures, including the statement of claim or appeal, in accordance with Articles 143 and 238 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (law), and consequently removes all the effects that follow from it.
The Pioneers Outside the Circle of Syndicate Influence
For his part, Mahmoud El-Sheikh, secretary-general of the Association of the Profession’s Pioneers at the Journalists Syndicate, stresses that Article 97 of the syndicate law is unjust to journalists who have been pensioned off, as it deprives them of basic rights, foremost among them the right to vote, the right to stand for election and financial privileges, explaining that this article has created an unfair reality that places the profession’s pioneers outside the circle of influence over syndicate decisions that directly affect their interests.
El-Sheikh explains that depriving retired journalists of the vote has a negative effect on their participation in decision-making within the syndicate, noting that they are able to elect local councils, parliament and the President of the Republic, but are deprived of electing the head of the Journalists Syndicate or influencing any important syndicate decision, despite having professional experience spanning decades. He points out that Article 97 contradicts the constitution, and the Association of the Profession’s Pioneers has repeatedly demanded that it be amended, but successive syndicate councils have refused to take a serious step in this direction, on the pretext of fearing sending the law to the House of Representatives and the wide-ranging changes that might result from that.
He tells Zawia3: “The syndicate law issued in 1972 has retired just as the profession’s pioneers themselves have retired, and it has become so outdated that it still stipulates the syndicate’s membership in the ‘Arab Socialist Union’, which ceased to exist decades ago, and updating it has become a pressing necessity that cannot be postponed.”
El-Sheikh believes that the Journalists Syndicate is the only professional syndicate in Egypt that excludes pensioners from voting, considering this an abnormal situation that is consistent neither with the history of the profession nor with the role a syndicate is supposed to play, pointing out that the extraordinary general assembly recently held by the Pioneers’ Association demanded the amendment of just one article, namely adding the word “and pensioners” to the definition of members, so that retired journalists would have the right to vote and to participate fully in syndicate life.
With regard to the value of the pensions retired journalists receive, El-Sheikh considers the syndicate pension extremely low and insufficient for retirees’ needs, explaining that the Association of the Profession’s Pioneers has repeatedly demanded an increase, but successive councils have not responded, and pointing out that restoring the right to vote to retired journalists would change the syndicate scene, because this group has more than fifty years of experience in the profession and has the ability to “sort” and choose the most suitable and the genuine syndicate figure, as he put it.
In November of last year, the Pioneers’ Association at the Journalists Syndicate announced an escalation against the Journalists Syndicate council, calling for an extraordinary general assembly to be convened in protest at what it described as the “deliberate disregard” of the demands of retired journalists, particularly regarding the increase of pensions. The association accused the syndicate council of “a clear insult to the history and sacrifices of the profession’s pioneers”, considering that disregarding the rights of retirees constitutes a violation of their dignity and of the professionalism of journalism, and pledging to take strong escalatory steps if the disregard continued.
Professional Execution
For his part, Ayman Abdel Meguid, head of the Pensions Committee and member of the Journalists Syndicate council, affirms that he has championed the cause of reforming the legislation on the rights of the profession’s pioneer journalists since 2008, when he published an investigation entitled “The Journalists Syndicate Executes 600 of the Profession’s Elders“, in reference to the harm a journalist suffers on moving to the pensions register, explaining that the number of journalists pensioned off at that time was about 560 members, while today it has risen to about 1000 journalists, in addition to nearly 900 beneficiaries of deceased journalists, bringing the total number of those receiving the syndicate pension to about 1900 people.
He tells Zawia3: “Article 97 of the Journalists Syndicate Law represents a professional execution of the journalist who moves to the pensions register, as it deprives him of the right to vote and to stand for election, and prevents him from returning to the register of practising journalists even if he obtains a new journalistic job opportunity or a leadership position within a media institution. This article, along with other articles, has become completely unsuited to the reality of journalistic work, especially with the expansion of digital media, whose workers the current law does not allow to be registered.”
Abdel Meguid explains that since he took up the post of the syndicate’s secretary-general in the period from 2012 to 2013, he began working on a legislative amendment to reform those articles, and prepared a set of resolutions to present to the general assembly, among them Resolution No. 5, which the assembly approved, and which obliges the syndicate council to introduce an amendment to Article 32 of the law. The proposed amendment provides for adding the word “pensions” to the composition of the general assembly, so that it comprises members of the practising and pensions registers who have paid their fees, guaranteeing full equality in financial and syndicate rights, and for abolishing Article 97, which strips the profession’s pioneers of their rights.
The head of the Pensions Committee stresses that equality between the allowance and the pension is an inherent right, as the current pension is more than EGP 1,000 less than the technology and training allowance received by newly registered journalists, which is an illogical paradox for those who have spent their lives in the profession, noting that during the latest syndicate council meeting he renewed his proposal to increase the value of pensions by EGP 500, in line with the latest increase in the technology allowance. However, this step requires EGP 1 million a month (about 12 million a year), and he has identified the sources to cover it through raising membership fees from EGP 200 to EGP 300, in addition to the financial dues owed by institutions and the rents of newspaper kiosks.
Abdel Meguid affirms that this increase is “an obligatory right” for the profession’s pioneers, and that the syndicate council must work to approve it as soon as possible, noting that the rejection was not of the principle of the increase but of the capacity of the current budget. He expressed his determination to continue pushing for the implementation of this entitlement and to ensure that journalists who have been pensioned off obtain their rights in full.
Fears of Amending the Syndicate Law
The basic problem is not so much amending the Journalists Syndicate Law as the mechanism for representing pensioners within the syndicate; the current crisis lies in how to involve people who do not actually practise the profession in choosing representatives of working journalists, as explained to Zawia3 by a syndicate source who preferred not to be named, who considers that the problem lies not in granting representation to this group, but in allowing it to influence the choice of a council that represents those who practise the profession, which involves a “legal defect” that would cause “a legal and political problem” concerning the soundness of the electorate, especially given the large size of this group compared with practising journalists, in his words.
The source believes that the logical solution is to give pensioners appropriate representation within the syndicate council, for instance by choosing the head of the association as their representative, who would take part in the council as a member or as an observer member, considering that his presence in the capacity of an “observer” might be most appropriate, because he should not vote on the budget or on financial decisions for which he has not been elected by all the members of the syndicate.
Regarding the discussions about whether it is possible to amend the syndicate law, Hisham Younis, treasurer and member of the Registration Committee of the Journalists Syndicate council, explains that there are fundamental problems in this file; the disagreement is not limited to the content of the amendments, but extends to the very principle of being able to change the law at all, amid real fears that any amendment made at present would backfire.
He tells Zawia3: “The current political and parliamentary climate is not reassuring, and it may produce texts that reinforce restrictions rather than supporting the syndicate’s independence or protecting journalists, and there is a possibility of the amendments being exploited to tighten some articles or to introduce others that keep pace with the updating taking place in the tools of repression.”
On how far these fears are linked to press freedom, the member of the Registration Committee of the Journalists Syndicate council indicates that the concerns are indeed focused on the possibility of freedoms being restricted, above all the guarantees relating to the protection of journalists. Although these guarantees are often violated on the ground, as happens when journalists are arrested from their homes, he stresses the need to hold on to them rather than abolish them, considering that what is required is to defend them and to struggle for their actual application.
The testimonies of retired journalists, together with the texts of the law itself, reveal a widening gap between the reality of journalism today and the legislative framework that has governed it for more than half a century; Article 97 and the related restrictions on registration, extension, voting and standing for election not only marginalise this group, but also weaken the structure of the syndicate and its ability to genuinely represent its professional community.
With “zero contracts” still in use, pensions low, and no fair mechanisms to guarantee a journalist’s right to work or to participate in the syndicate after retirement, reforming the law becomes a necessity that cannot be postponed if the syndicate is to regain its role as an inclusive space that defends the rights of all journalists without discrimination, and protects the journalist’s right to work, to opinion and to representation until the last day of his professional life. Until that happens, about a thousand retired journalists will continue to pay the price of outdated texts that reflect neither the nature of the profession nor its current conditions.
Editorial clarification: The Journalists Syndicate Law No. 76 was issued in 1970, not in 1972 as stated by the source.
