The Egyptian Ministry of Justice’s recent decision suspending access to subsidies and to a large number of government services for those convicted in cases of refusal to pay maintenance has sparked wide controversy. While observers see it as a necessary step to strengthen the enforcement of court rulings and protect the rights of women and children to maintenance, others regard it as an expansion of administrative penalties, in a way that may infringe on fundamental constitutional principles, amid fears that public services will turn into punitive tools.
The decision, which was published in the Official Gazette on 15 March of this month, provides for suspending access to 34 government services provided by 11 ministries and linked to the professional or economic activity of the convicted persons, until they pay the maintenance debt that has accumulated against them. It relies on the text of Article 293 of Law No. 6 of 2020 amending certain provisions of the Penal Code issued by Law No. 58 of 1937, which was issued by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and published in the Official Gazette at the beginning of February 2020.
Article (293) stipulates that “anyone against whom an enforceable judicial ruling has been issued to pay maintenance to his spouse, relatives or in-laws, or custody, nursing or housing fees, and who refrains from paying, despite being able to do so, for a period of three months after being notified to pay, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year and a fine not exceeding EGP 5,000, or by one of these two penalties. The ruling issued with the conviction shall entail the suspension of the convicted person’s access to the services required to be obtained in connection with the practice of his professional activity which are provided by government bodies, public authorities, public sector and public business sector units, and bodies providing public utility services, until he pays what has accumulated against him in favour of the person in whose favour the ruling was issued and Nasser Social Bank, as the case may be.”
The suspension includes: at the Ministry of Social Solidarity, halting the issuance or renewal of the integrated services card for persons with disabilities; at the Ministry of Agriculture, the farmer’s card, the disbursement of fertilisers and agricultural census registration; and at the Ministry of Finance (Customs Authority), the issuance or renewal of the customs clearance licence.
It extends to the Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy (installing meters, changing the subscriber’s name, excavation permits), the Ministry of Supply (issuing cards, replacement of lost or damaged cards, adding newborns), and the Ministry of Local Development (professional driving licences, operating shops, road occupancy and commercial licences).
The decision also reaches the Ministry of Housing and the new cities’ authorities (building and operating permits, shops and utilities, reconciliation, land allocation, regularisation of status, and licences for advertisements and electronic services), the Ministry of Justice (real estate registration and notarisation services), the Ministry of Tourism (licences for establishments and for practising the activity), and the Ministry of Manpower (work permits, including those for foreigners), in addition to the services of the New Urban Communities Authority related to land and utilities.
Supporters of the decision see it as a new tool to break the cycle of evasion of maintenance rulings, from which thousands of children and women suffer, since many rulings remain unenforced for years, leaving them prey to difficult economic conditions.
The National Council for Women describes the decision as an important step to support family justice, which strengthens the protection of the rights of women and children and guarantees that they obtain the maintenance due to them, and encourages convicted persons to fulfil their legal obligations, praising at the same time the role of Nasser Social Bank and the Family Insurance Fund in facilitating the enforcement of rulings.
Dalia El-Sanhouri, a member of the National Council for Women’s Cairo branch, stresses that any court ruling, including maintenance rulings, must be enforced in accordance with the law, pointing out that digital transformation and automation make it easier to follow up on rulings, and that the licences and services linked to an individual can be checked, even if an in absentia ruling has been issued against him, which gives the affected party an opportunity to object or appeal.
She explains to Zawia3 that maintenance is calculated according to the income and revenues owned by the husband, and that a specific proportion is set for maintenance without touching the financial base, pointing out that the aim is to protect children and guarantee that they obtain their rights, stressing the importance of the implementation of the decision being accompanied by an awareness campaign and clear executive procedures, and noting that the National Council for Women plays an advisory role focused on awareness and legal support for women.
For her part, the Minister of Social Solidarity, Dr Maya Morsy, considered that the decision comes in implementation of the outcomes of the meeting she held with the Minister of Justice before the month of Ramadan, which discussed several topics, among them the family insurance system fund affiliated with Nasser Social Bank, stressing that this reflects the coordination and integration between the state’s ministries in a way that serves the interest of the citizen and the family.
She affirmed her ministry’s commitment to implementing the decision by halting the issuance and renewal of the integrated services card for persons with disabilities, and by obliging Nasser Social Bank to notify the bodies concerned of the names of persons against whom rulings have been issued in maintenance cases and who have not paid their dues, as well as notifying the bodies of those who have paid, so that the suspension of services can be lifted.
For his part, Ahmed Hanafy, a child protection consultant at the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood, explains that the decision mainly targets the father who deliberately refrains from paying maintenance after a final court ruling has been issued against him, with the aim of protecting children and guaranteeing that they obtain their basic needs, noting that the delay in the mother obtaining maintenance can take years because of judicial procedures, especially if the father tries to manipulate documents, and pointing to Nasser Bank’s provision of estimated maintenance, which provides a temporary source of income for the mother until the final judicial procedures are completed.
Hanafy stresses the importance of implementing the decision precisely to avoid loopholes, while taking into account the circumstances of different families and having mechanisms to ensure that maintenance reaches the mother in a fair and swift manner.
MP Fatma Adel, a member of the Egyptian House of Representatives for the Al-Adl Party, submitted a briefing request addressed to the Minister of Justice regarding the decision. While she considered that it aims to strengthen the enforcement of rulings and to ensure that financial rights reach those entitled to them, especially women and children, by linking access to some public services to the payment of the maintenance debt or the settlement of the debt, she questioned the consistency of legislative policies in personal status files, pointing to similar challenges in enforcing rulings on visitation or hosting and on educational guardianship.
The MP requested that her request be referred to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee to study the file and ensure the protection of the child’s interest and the stability of the family.
For her part, Dr Randa Mostafa, head of the Committee on Social Solidarity, Family and Persons with Disabilities in the Egyptian House of Representatives and women’s secretary of the Homat Watan Party, considers that the decision raises a legitimate debate, given that there are two different sides to assessing it: one humanitarian, related to protecting the rights of women and children, as a means of pressure on some fathers who evade the enforcement of maintenance rulings, which may help push them towards fulfilling their financial obligations towards their families, while the other side is legal, related to the extent of the constitutionality and legality of these measures, which is a matter for legal experts, in her words.
She tells Zawia3: “There are many cases in which families remain in limbo despite court rulings on maintenance having been issued, while women sometimes obtain limited sums from Nasser Social Bank not exceeding a few hundred pounds a month. Suspending some services may push fathers towards committing to their family responsibilities, and ending these measures is linked to the father paying the maintenance due from him.”
The head of the Social Solidarity Committee hopes that the efforts to move towards digital government will help connect the government bodies concerned to facilitate the implementation of the decision, ensuring that it is applied more efficiently, but at the same time she expressed concern about the most socially vulnerable cases among fathers, such as persons with disabilities or beneficiaries of social support programmes, who may actually be unable to pay, stressing that these cases may require humanitarian intervention by the competent bodies through a social survey to assess their circumstances.
An expanding punitive philosophy
On the other hand, the decision has sparked rights and parliamentary controversy over its implementation mechanism and its potential effects; its opponents believe that widening the scope of deprivation of services raises fears that it will turn into an additional administrative penalty alongside the judicial penalty stipulated in the law, and it also raises problems related to the principle of the personal nature of punishment if the effect of the suspension extends to the family members themselves.
Article (95) of the Egyptian Constitution stipulates that: “Punishment is personal. There shall be no crime and no punishment except on the basis of a law, no penalty shall be imposed except by a judicial ruling, and there shall be no punishment except for acts committed after the date on which the law enters into force”, which raises the question of whether suspending services will actually guarantee that maintenance reaches women and children, or will create new problems if it affects the debtor’s ability to work or to obtain the papers needed to earn his living?
In the same context, human rights lawyer and former presidential candidate Khaled Ali considers that the latest decision entrenches a punitive philosophy that has been expanding within Egyptian legislation for years, and that it also raises a wide debate that concerns not only its usefulness, but its legal nature and its social and political effects, and the extent to which it entrenches a pattern of administrative penalties that go beyond the traditional framework for enforcing court rulings, explaining that the decision was not issued in a legislative vacuum, as it is based on a previous amendment to the Egyptian Penal Code under Law No. 6 of 2020, which amended Article 293 on the crime of refusing to pay maintenance, toughened the penalty and permitted the suspension of some government services for those who refuse to pay, as a means of pressure to enforce the ruling.
He says, in a post on his account on “Facebook“, that “the existence of a legislative basis does not mean that administrative application becomes immune from criticism, and the real debate concerns the limits of this legal basis, the nature of the services covered by the suspension, and the extent to which the decision adheres to the principles of proportionality and necessity, the prevention of abuse and respect for constitutional rights”.
While he stresses that maintenance represents, in many cases, a basic source of living for the wife or the children, and that tightening the means of obliging the debtor to pay can therefore be understood, in order to protect the weaker party and prevent the circumvention of court rulings, he warns at the same time against the means of enforcement turning into an extended punitive mechanism that may hinder the debtor’s ability to work or earn, which may in practice lead to him defaulting on the debt instead of being obliged to pay it.
He considers that suspending some non-essential services may fall within acceptable means of pressure, but expanding the suspension to a large number of services without distinction may raise suspicion of a breach of the principle of proportionality, especially if it touches services necessary for daily life, work or medical treatment, calling for consideration of cases of genuine inability to pay and for distinguishing between them and cases of deliberate refusal, for the provision of clear and swift mechanisms for grievances, and for a periodic review of decisions to suspend services, so as not to open the door to entrenching an administrative model based on using public services as a means of pressure.
Hamdy Ahmed Rizk, a lawyer before the Court of Appeal and the Egyptian State Council, explains that the Minister of Justice’s decision is originally based on the amendment made to Article 293 in 2020, while the activation of this mechanism came about six years late since the amendment was issued, which aimed to tighten the measures against those who refuse to comply with maintenance rulings, explaining that the decision was welcomed by mothers who face great difficulties in collecting children’s maintenance, as enforcement procedures may take years, which pushes them to rely on the temporary maintenance disbursed by Nasser Social Bank.
Nevertheless, he has reservations about the suspension of some services that may affect persons other than the maintenance debtor, such as the ration card, as halting the subsidy may harm the other family members who benefit from the card, in addition to the decision’s focus on services related to professional or economic activities, questioning how other groups that may refuse to pay their children’s maintenance without falling within the scope of the suspended services will be dealt with.
He expects the decision to face practical challenges in implementation, explaining that its application requires proof of refusal to pay for a period of three months, in addition to the lack of clarity in the procedural mechanisms for notifying the various bodies of the rulings issued, adding that “legal texts may look good on paper, but they often collide with the challenges of actual application on the ground, and addressing the maintenance crisis requires wider reforms in the litigation and enforcement system, because slow justice is in itself a form of injustice”.
Lawyer Hany Sameh, a member of the Freedoms Committee of the Lawyers Syndicate, considers that suspending the access of those convicted in cases of refusal to pay maintenance to some government services may conflict with constitutional guarantees, even if its aim is to protect the child’s right to maintenance, because it touches basic rights and services of citizens, pointing out that the legal systems in most developed countries rely, in debt cases, on direct enforcement procedures to guarantee payment, such as seizing bank balances or deducting part of salaries, in a manner consistent with the principles of justice.
He tells Zawia3: “Protecting children’s rights to maintenance is a legitimate goal, but it should be achieved through balanced legal mechanisms that guarantee the collection of rights without infringing on the basic constitutional rights of citizens”
He explains that ending the effects of the suspension in the event that the maintenance is paid requires official procedures, as a judicial certificate proving the settlement must be submitted, along with a certificate of discharge of liability from Nasser Social Bank, for the suspension to be lifted and access to services restored.
According to the Minister of Justice’s decision, Nasser Social Bank immediately notifies the bodies of the names of the convicted debtors, and the suspension continues until a certificate of discharge from the debt is submitted, and the Minister of Justice may also add or remove services/bodies in the future.
It does not guarantee stable maintenance for the child
According to Entessar El-Saeed, a human rights lawyer and chair of the board of trustees of the Cairo Foundation for Development and Law, the Minister of Justice’s decision can be understood in the context of the state’s attempt to address a chronic problem from which thousands of women and children suffer, namely the difficulty of enforcing maintenance rulings and the evasion of paying them, which places them in difficult economic conditions, but it raises at the same time important legal questions, as suspending some government services as a means of pressure may turn into an administrative measure of a punitive nature if it is not linked to clear legal guarantees and precise verification procedures.
She stresses that the principle in a state governed by the rule of law is that penalties are defined by clear legislative texts and are issued through the judiciary, not through general administrative decisions that may be applied to cases with varying circumstances, pointing out that the declared aim of the decision is to protect the rights of the child, which is a legitimate and important goal, but its effectiveness in achieving this goal depends to a large degree on how it is applied in practice.
She tells Zawia3: “Suspending services may push some of those who refuse to pay to commit to maintenance, but on its own it does not represent a sufficient guarantee that maintenance will arrive regularly, because the basic problem in Egypt is not limited to refusal to pay only, but also extends to the slowness of enforcement procedures and the weakness of collection mechanisms, and protecting the child requires a wider system that includes the swift enforcement of rulings, a more effective role for the Family Insurance Fund, and financial follow-up mechanisms that guarantee continuity.”
She explains that an ordinary maintenance ruling is a ruling issued by the family court that obliges the father, or whoever is legally obliged to pay maintenance, to pay a specific sum in favour of the wife or the children; Article 293 of the Penal Code, however, deals with a different situation, namely refusal to comply with the maintenance ruling despite the ability to pay, as the matter in this case turns from a civil dispute into a criminal offence punishable by law with imprisonment or a fine. But she warns at the same time that imprecise application may lead to unintended social effects, such as disrupting a person’s ability to work or to obtain the papers needed to earn a living, which may aggravate the problem instead of solving it, unless the measure is gradual and accompanied by a precise assessment of each case.
The human rights lawyer believes that striking a balance between protecting children’s rights and avoiding excessive penalties can be achieved by verifying the actual ability to pay before imposing any restrictive measure, applying the measures gradually, and making clear paths available for settling the debt or paying it in instalments, so that the collection of maintenance is for the benefit of the child, and not merely a punishment of the debtor.
She adds: “The success of the decision depends on the transparency of the implementation mechanisms and on verifying financial solvency, by reviewing sources of income, property or economic activity, and on the existence of clear rules specifying the body responsible for determining cases of refusal and how names are entered on the lists for the suspension of services, and clarifying the time period and procedures needed to lift the suspension after payment, with a clear mechanism for appeal; the absence of these controls may open the door to administrative errors or unfair application.”
She points out that Egypt is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which obliges states to take the necessary measures to ensure that children obtain maintenance from their parents, stressing that improving the maintenance system requires broader solutions than mere penalties, among them strengthening the role of Nasser Social Bank and the Family Insurance Fund in paying maintenance to children immediately, establishing an effective system for tracking income and collecting directly from wages, and speeding up family court procedures and the enforcement of rulings, in addition to providing mechanisms for settlement and debt rescheduling, in a way that guarantees a dignified and stable life for children after divorce.
For his part, lawyer and human rights researcher Abdel Razek Mostafa expresses his reservations about the way the decision is being applied, because it deprives citizens of some forms of social support, which represents an additional burden on the most economically vulnerable groups, warning against expanding the use of administrative penalties without an institutional and technical infrastructure capable of managing these procedures efficiently, so that widespread administrative confusion does not occur, affecting citizens’ ability to complete their basic transactions, and pointing out that the international experiences that applied such mechanisms were preceded by long stages of public awareness-raising, preparation of digital infrastructure and the linking of databases between government bodies.
He tells Zawia3: “Imposing more than one penalty for the same act on a person against whom a court ruling has been issued raises a problem related to the principle that a person may not be punished twice for the same act, which is a settled principle in legal jurisprudence”
He stresses that protecting children’s rights and guaranteeing that they obtain maintenance remains a legitimate goal consistent with Egypt’s international obligations, particularly in light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but achieving this goal requires designing balanced policies that guarantee the enforcement of court rulings without expanding measures that may aggravate the economic burdens on some families.
The director of the Access to Justice Programme at the Centre for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance, Gawaher El-Taher, considers that any measure aimed at guaranteeing that children and women obtain maintenance is a positive step, because refusal to pay maintenance represents one of the biggest challenges facing the enforcement of court rulings in Egypt, but these measures should come within an integrated system for guaranteeing the enforcement of rulings, not one limited to imposing administrative penalties alone, without clear controls to determine whether the debtor refuses to pay despite his financial ability, or is actually unable to pay.
She tells Zawia3: “The decision alone will not guarantee that children obtain stable maintenance, and protecting their rights requires speeding up litigation procedures, activating the role of the Family Insurance Fund, and reviewing the value of the amount disbursed by Nasser Social Bank in cases of maintenance disbursement, which currently does not exceed EGP 500, whatever the amount of maintenance awarded.”
According to official data, there have been 245,000 maintenance rulings from 2004 until 30 June 2020, and the total paid by the Family Insurance Fund affiliated with Nasser Social Bank to beneficiaries of maintenance under court rulings exceeds about EGP 7.8 billion up to 2025, covering maintenance rulings for a total of 409,000 beneficiaries, as the bank pays a sum of EGP 500 a month, as a maximum, until the full amount is collected from the person against whom the ruling was issued.
Nasser Bank previously launched an initiative, on the instructions of former Minister of Social Solidarity Nevine El-Kabbag, to adjust the credit status of maintenance debtors, remove them from the blacklist and lift the ban on dealing with them, facilitating their freedom to deal with the banking sector and reconciliation in all criminal cases filed against them if they pay the debt and make regular maintenance payments.
The director of the Access to Justice Programme at the Centre for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance believes that depriving the maintenance debtor of some government services may be an effective means with financially capable persons who deliberately delay payment, but she warns that applying these measures widely without a precise assessment of the economic situation may lead to counterproductive results, by restricting the person’s ability to work or to obtain the licences needed to earn an income.
Gawaher believes that striking a balance between protecting children’s rights and avoiding excessive penalties can be achieved by verifying the actual ability to pay, and grading the measures from warning to sanctions, while ensuring that the penalties do not affect the person’s ability to work and earn an income, and making mechanisms for instalments or settlement available in the event of financial difficulties, in a way that guarantees that maintenance reaches the child, and not merely a punishment of the debtor, provided that there are clear rules for the exchange of data between the courts and government bodies, and review and oversight procedures that ensure that errors or arbitrary application of the decision do not occur.
Gawaher calls for broader reforms, including increasing the amount disbursed by Nasser Social Bank, activating the role of the Family Insurance Fund so that it becomes able to pay maintenance immediately and then recover it from the debtor, along with speeding up the procedures for enforcing rulings, developing a system for tracking the real income of the person obliged to pay maintenance, and providing social and legal support services to families to ensure the stability of children’s lives.
In conclusion, the Ministry of Justice’s decision reveals a thorny equation between a legitimate goal, namely protecting children’s rights and guaranteeing that they obtain maintenance, and real fears related to the limits of administrative punishment and the extent of its consistency with constitutional principles, especially the principle of proportionality, the personal nature of punishment and the prohibition of double punishment.
While the decision-maker is betting on the effectiveness of administrative pressure in breaking the cycle of evasion of enforcing rulings, the success of this mechanism remains contingent on the existence of a precise executive structure and clear controls that distinguish between those who deliberately refuse and those unable to pay, along with the provision of fair paths for grievances and settlement, so that the decision does not aggravate the suffering of some families.
