Abdel Mohsen Salama’s involvement in the Journalists Syndicate dates to the beginning of this century. Before the January 2011 revolution, he served on its council and as a deputy chair. He later led the syndicate for two years, from 2017 to 2019.
Salama says that, during his term, he worked on a training centre and a hospital for journalists. It was also a period in which press-regulation laws criticised for restricting the profession were enacted. He has faced accusations concerning scaffolding placed on the syndicate’s steps and the failure to give temporary staff at state-owned newspapers permanent contracts—accusations he disputes.
In this interview with Zawia3, he discusses detained journalists, temporary employment, the training and technology allowance, press legislation and the symbolic role of the syndicate’s steps. The answers below present his positions and claims during the 2025 election campaign.
Do you consider yourself the state’s candidate for syndicate chair?
There is no such thing as a state candidate and a candidate who does not belong to the state. Which state are we talking about? The state is Egypt; this is not Israel versus Egypt or America versus Egypt. We are only talking about the Egyptian state, and there is no competition between states.
I do not think the question should be posed in the first place. I consider myself a candidate for all journalists and all political currents, and my record demonstrates that. I am not new to public life or someone suddenly being put forward. I have been an Al Ahram board member, a syndicate council member, its first deputy chair and its chair.
Some people want to divide the election into camps in a way that harms the profession and the syndicate. The chair should represent every journalist and every current, not a clique or one particular group.
You promised an unprecedented allowance increase, but it was absent from the social-support package. What happened, and what do you think of using the allowance as an electoral weapon?
I did not say the increase would come in the social package; the other side said that. Some want to distract voters from the main issue: is there a law or decision requiring the allowance to rise by a certain percentage at a particular time? Unfortunately not. As a journalist, I wish such a law existed.
So how does it increase? Through the chair’s strength and ability to negotiate. That has been the case since former chair Ibrahim Nafie introduced the allowance. When we say this, some try to play on colleagues’ emotions, which is wrong. We should unite around the syndicate and its ability to secure the greatest possible gains.
The allowance is the only common, fair yardstick for all journalists. Salaries vary between institutions, as do funding arrangements at state-owned, private and party newspapers. Some colleagues face such arbitrary treatment that they receive no salary from their employer and depend on the allowance as their main income.
That makes it the common mechanism for improving journalists’ incomes now. Other solutions, such as a wage framework, can be discussed, but many details shape the conditions in which they would operate.
There is disagreement over your claim to have delivered the training centre, and doubts about your hospital pledge. How do you respond?
One item in my 2017 programme was an international-standard training centre on the syndicate building’s unused floors, in cooperation with educational institutions inside and outside Egypt.
Our colleague Yehia Qallash had proposed a social and cultural club, and contacted Sheikh Sultan Al Qasimi about support for it. My proposal was a training centre. It was in my 2017 programme, and colleagues will have copies. I developed that idea.
Qallash helped secure EGP 20 million from Sheikh Sultan for the social club, but the training centre cost around EGP 50 million, not EGP 20 million.
As for the hospital, it is a promise I am confident I will fulfil because I began the project during my 2017–2019 term. There is a letter allocating land in 6th of October City and a record of the first instalment being paid on 25 February 2019, shortly before my term ended. I will complete it in the next term.
What troubles me is being dragged into arguments that do not serve the profession or the syndicate. I have a programme I want to implement and will not be distracted by what is said here or there.
How would you address the issue of imprisoned journalists?
There is a claim that I had nothing to do with this issue and did not work on it as chair. That is untrue. I intervened in several cases, including one involving a journalist at Al Gomhuria who did not spend a single hour in prison. The same happened with colleagues at Radio and Television magazine.
I did everything I could, my efforts succeeded, and I remained in contact with colleagues facing imprisonment-related cases. What I offer now is movement on this issue. I expect a significant development soon, perhaps before the election. I will not abandon it; I will work to move it forward and resolve it, and I stand with detained journalists of every current and background.
What do journalists need most now: freedoms or services?
It is not a choice between the two. Both must move together. There is no dignity for someone struggling to earn enough to eat. I must help journalists secure a livelihood and a decent life, just as I must defend their freedom.
“There can be no freedom without economic security, and no economic security without freedom. I believe the two go together.”
Concentrated newspaper ownership affects wages and freedom. What does it mean for journalism’s future?
I have always believed journalism has a future and no substitute. What changes is its form. Private and state-owned newspapers face problems, but if we understand that journalism is not disappearing, we can solve them.
I have my experience at Al Ahram: I moved it from one position to another and solved many of its problems, as I did at the syndicate. Colleagues at Watani, Al Shorouk, Al Ahali and Al Wafd recognise that. When journalists with different ideologies agree about your record, that is a professional achievement.
What legislative changes does journalism need?
We need major improvements, especially a freedom-of-information law. You cannot hold a journalist accountable for publishing incorrect information while withholding the correct information.
Of course journalists must seek information from its source. But suppose a journalist has made a serious effort and still cannot obtain it. I am not talking about national-security issues. Take someone preparing a report on wheat: they should be able to obtain a complete file of data. Instead, the ministry turns them away, even after repeated attempts. What can they do except work with what they can find? That is why access-to-information legislation is essential.
Website blocking is closely related to access to information. Zawia3 was recently blocked. How would you address this?
I oppose closing any website or newspaper. Closing one shuts a window of light and an outlet for journalism. Blocking websites is like depriving the world of air and light.
I am also in favour of bringing websites into a legal framework, with procedures that make that easier rather than obstruct it. I support the freedom to establish websites and newspapers.
What is your position on journalists working for digital outlets?
There is a major problem concerning digital journalists. Legislative changes are needed to regularise the position of news websites and establish clear rules for admitting their journalists to the syndicate.
The membership register is one of the most sensitive matters in the syndicate. Tampering with it is a time bomb for the profession’s future and the coming generations. It must be properly regulated.
Opening associate membership would, in my view, seriously distort that register and bring in people who are not professionals. I support legal recognition for websites and legislative changes establishing a rigorous admission mechanism, rather than relying only on an interview that amounts to a cursory inspection.
There should be consistent admission standards applied to Al Ahram, your website, independent newspapers and private outlets alike. This is possible; successful international examples exist. The present arrangements need to be reconsidered.
How can indebted and loss-making state-owned press institutions be developed? Should assets be sold to support them?
My experience as Al Ahram’s board chair is important here. I took it from one position to another and resolved roughly 75% of its problems, although some 25% or 30% still needed work. I did not sell a single asset to do so. The key was investment and development.
We invested in land in Hurghada and Smart Village, used part of Al Ahram’s building for a banking complex, and expanded the university bearing its name and doubled its revenue.
State-owned institutions have a strong chance of recovery if their assets are put to use. Al Ahram’s experience demonstrates that. I oppose merging institutions or shutting publications: closing an edition, like blocking a website, shuts an outlet for light.
Journalism has a future as well as challenges. Saying it is finished is simply not true; it continues across the world. We have problems that can be solved.
You have been accused of contributing to the freeze on permanent appointments at state-owned newspapers. How do you respond on temporary staff?
This is one of the rumours that follow me, although my mind and heart are open to everyone. We should be having an election in which we choose the best person, not one defined by polarisation, hostility and exchanges of accusations.
I believe temporary staff have a just cause, and I say this all the time, not just during elections. It is an inherited problem being used unfairly in campaigning.
I unequivocally support giving them permanent appointments, for two reasons. First, it is fair to colleagues who have worked for years. Second, it serves the institutions themselves, which must not grow old without renewing their workforce.
We need not only to appoint existing temporary staff, but to allow recruitment on an ongoing basis at appropriate levels, ensuring a continuing flow of new people into state-owned press institutions.
Previous councils were divided. How would you overcome those divisions if elected?
All the candidates and council members are personal friends; I have no enmity with any of them. I dislike ideological, political and professional sectarianism. I will reach out to everyone, and everyone should reciprocate for the common good.
We belong to one syndicate and one profession. The syndicate needs considerable effort and a strong chair capable of securing our rights through negotiation, as with the allowance.
The issue is choosing someone who can negotiate and obtain colleagues’ rights through lawful means. That is the basis on which I am standing. I extend my hand to journalists and council colleagues across the spectrum.
I always say: leave your party colours at the syndicate door. If it is run as a clique or for one current, we will all lose.
The syndicate’s steps have professional and political symbolism. What should their role be?
I oppose demonstrations on the syndicate’s steps. Their symbolism belongs to journalists. The steps and the syndicate itself are for journalists, not for demonstrations or demonstrators.
Is that why scaffolding was placed on the steps for a period?
Those are lies. No scaffolding was placed on the syndicate’s steps during my term, and neither the syndicate nor its steps was closed for a single hour while I was chair. That happened after me and was then attributed to me.
But I also do not believe any group or political current has the right to demonstrate there. The steps are for journalists alone. This is a journalists’ syndicate, not a syndicate of parties or demonstrators.
