The National Election Authority (NEA) has annulled the results of 19 individual-seat districts out of the 70 that held elections in the first phase last week — nearly one quarter of all announced results — after identifying what it described as “fundamental flaws” that compromised the integrity of both the voting and counting processes.
The decision, announced by NEA Chairman Counselor Hazem Badawi in a press conference on Tuesday, covered districts that witnessed significant violations or inconsistencies in tallying records that undermined the legitimacy of the electoral process.
The violations prompting annulment included campaigning outside polling stations, failure to provide candidates or their representatives with copies of the tally records, and major discrepancies between the figures recorded in subcommittees and those reported by main committees. The NEA deemed these breaches sufficient to invalidate the results in the affected districts.
Meanwhile, Counselor Ahmed Bendari, director of the NEA’s executive body, stated that the authority had found no evidence of monetary bribery by any candidate, but that investigations into the irregularities in the 19 districts are ongoing, with results to be announced upon completion.
Under Article 54 of the Political Rights Law, the NEA issued a full annulment of the individual-seat elections in these districts and set a new voting date for early December, inside and outside Egypt.
Imbaba in Giza topped the list of annulled districts — the same district where former MP Nashwa El-Deeb withdrew shortly after polls opened, protesting what she described as the absence of guarantees for fairness and the presence of a “security-backed candidate.”
The NEA also canceled results in four districts in Qena, seven in Sohag, two in Fayoum, one in Assiut, one in Alexandria, and three in Beheira.
This move came after President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi urged the NEA on Monday to scrutinize the events reported in several individual-seat districts during the first phase, and to annul results “entirely or partially” if it proved impossible to “ascertain the voters’ true will.” He stressed that the integrity of the elections must come first, encouraging the NEA not to hesitate in canceling the entire phase or specific districts if necessary.
The first phase was marred by several crises documented in widely circulated videos. Among these was the withdrawal of Nashwa El-Deeb from Imbaba after just one hour, citing “a lack of integrity and transparency, and predetermined seats handed to the security candidate.” Another major incident occurred in Alexandria’s Montaza district, where candidate Ahmed Fathy Abdel Karim of the Reform and Renaissance Party appealed directly to the president after discovering that several ballot boxes at Mostafa Mosharafa School had been opened and emptied of ballots before the official counting time — an incident he described as clear evidence of potential tampering.
Another controversy surrounded candidate Mahmoud Goueli, who publicly appealed to the president claiming that attempts had been made to offer him money in Cairo’s Fifth Settlement district to influence his stance in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Hours after posting his plea, Goueli was arrested and disappeared for several hours before prosecutors in New Cairo released him, following an investigation into allegations of spreading false news.
In parallel, the Judges Club of Egypt confirmed that judges and prosecutors did not supervise the recent 2025 parliamentary elections, in adherence to constitutional restrictions governing judicial participation in electoral processes.
In a statement obtained by Zawia3, the Judges Club welcomed the president’s directives to the NEA emphasizing the need to ensure voters’ genuine will and to take appropriate action when this cannot be guaranteed. The Club described these directives as reflecting the state’s commitment to principles of transparency and integrity in managing the electoral process.
Don’t miss: 70 Million for a Seat: The Price of Entering Egypt’s Parliament
Attempts at Patchwork Repairs
Well-informed sources told Zawia3 that over the past two days the National Security Sector summoned several candidates from districts that witnessed major controversy and publicly documented irregularities during the election process. According to the sources, the purpose of the summons was to discuss the possibility of rerunning elections in those districts, while securing commitments from the candidates that, if reruns were ordered, they would not withdraw and would contest the elections again.
The sources added that this is exactly what happened with former MP Nashwa El-Deeb, who announced—after the president’s statement—that she was ready to run again if a rerun was ordered.
According to the sources, the crisis in several districts — which sparked widespread anger — stemmed from National Security–backed candidates dominating the electoral process, even at the expense of candidates supported by other state bodies, including the General Intelligence Service. The sources noted that the majority party, Future of the Homeland, committed several violations targeting candidates aligned with other sovereign institutions.
The sources explained that the events of the first phase created tension within the regime itself, as warnings reached the presidential palace about the growing public anger and anxiety surrounding the election process. This, they said, prompted the president to intervene to contain the crisis and prevent escalation.
Journalist Hesham Fouad argues that the problem is not limited to the 19 districts, but lies in the architecture of the elections themselves — from the political climate in which they were held, to the electoral law, the design of the lists, and the process of candidate approval or exclusion. What is happening, he says, is merely cosmetic work masking an ugly reality, not a genuine correction of the electoral process.
Fouad told Zawia3 that correcting the course would require canceling the elections entirely and holding them under fundamentally different conditions, including dissolving the National Election Authority and holding accountable those responsible for the violations. Protecting them, he warns, only ensures these abuses will be repeated. He added that the current move aims to give the president a popularity boost by portraying him as rejecting what happened — similar to the way he positioned himself during the debate over the Criminal Procedures Law.
Fouad stressed that the president himself did not implement the National Dialogue’s recommendations, foremost among them providing real guarantees for democratic elections: proportional lists, full judicial supervision, a political climate that allows for genuine political activity, and the release of political prisoners.
He believes that certain state bodies, in the context of their rivalry with others, decided to intervene to repair the pro-government camp, which had fractured as a result of the heavy-handed approach of the security apparatus overseeing the elections — an approach oblivious to the political sensitivity of a parliament that will soon oversee constitutional amendments. With this intervention, he argues, two birds were killed with one stone: first, a partial curbing of the security service that had captured most seats through pro-government parties and closed lists; and second, granting the president the popularity he currently needs before constitutional changes, while also giving segments of the “decorative opposition” renewed hope that reform from above — through alignment with the presidency and the rival security apparatus — might still be possible.
It is worth noting that retired military intelligence officer and former MP Major General Tamer El-Shahawy ignited heated debate after posting a Facebook comment reading:
“In response to the many questions I keep receiving about the parliamentary elections… I am not interested at all. I do not follow competitions whose results I already know. I will not recommend any candidate over another — even if the advice were sound, it would help no one. I advise everyone to participate, even if it is pointless, because the results are not a mystery… and the overwhelming majority of those who will swear the parliamentary oath would lose any real election — even the election of their building’s homeowners association. What a farce we will pay for later.”
Are the NEA’s Decisions Enough?
Despite the annulment of results in 19 electoral districts during the first phase of the parliamentary elections — nearly a quarter of all participating districts, in an unprecedented move in Egypt’s electoral history — the step has done little to calm the controversy surrounding the integrity of the vote. Well-informed sources told Zawia3 that several lawyers and citizens are preparing new complaints regarding violations documented in districts where results were upheld, reflecting ongoing public anxiety and political tension over the transparency and credibility of the elections.
In this context, Medhat El-Zahad, head of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, told Zawia3 that the annulment of 19 districts is far from sufficient, stressing that the entire electoral process was neither fair nor transparent, and that it failed to reflect the genuine will of the people. Electoral justice, he argued, begins with guaranteeing citizens the real ability to run and compete — not merely with the voting and counting stages.
El-Zahad pointed out that the absolute closed-list system resulted in single lists sweeping all districts, sidelining all others, effectively making half of parliament appointed in practice, rather than chosen by voters. He added that the high candidacy fees — reaching around 40,000 pounds — barred large segments of citizens from running, undermining participation and violating the principle of equal opportunity.
He also argued that the division of individual-seat districts was shaped by unfair considerations: some small districts elect one MP, while larger ones elect two — a violation, he said, of the Constitutional Court’s standards on equal vote weight. This unequal division, he stressed, deprived certain districts of fair representation.
El-Zahad cited the exclusion of candidates even before nomination began, such as Haitham El-Hariri, who was barred from running despite meeting legal requirements, and whose military service completion was blocked for administrative reasons — despite his political record and family history. He also referenced Mohamed Abdel Halim, who was falsely accused of drug use, preventing voters from exercising their political rights freely.
He emphasized that political money played a major role in distorting the voters’ free will, while restrictions on media freedom and judicial independence further harmed electoral integrity — factors he said threaten both political stability and national security.
El-Zahad concluded that if there is genuine intent to reform, the elections must be reheld entirely under a new legal framework, adopting a proportional list system that ensures fairer representation for all groups and respects citizens’ free will.
For his part, Mohamed El-Garhy, member of the Journalists’ Syndicate Board, described the NEA’s decision regarding the first phase of the 2025 elections as partial and inadequate, reducing months of political upheaval to a handful of districts. He argued that the decision failed to address the core issues and that a full electoral rerun would have been the only real guarantee of transparency and fairness.
El-Garhy told Zawia3 that the current electoral system effectively results in nearly half of parliament being appointed through a single, uncontested list, depriving voters of real choice and limiting their representation. Meanwhile, independent candidates faced violations even before voting, including the allocation of their numbers and symbols to pro-government parties or candidates linked to security agencies, and the exclusion of other candidates without transparent safeguards. This, he said, eroded confidence in the process and discouraged credible candidates from running.
He also warned of the spread of seat-buying, where candidates enter the lists without real campaigning, while businessmen and their children secure seats reserved for women, Copts, and people with disabilities. He further noted the practice of transferring candidates into districts with which they have no ties simply to “place” them — undermining residents’ right to choose their own representatives.
El-Garhy stressed that these violations extended not only to parliamentary elections but also to the Senate elections, without accountability or correction. The NEA’s actions, he said, amounted to mere painkillers, while Egypt’s electoral process requires a complete overhaul.
He added that the absence of local elections since 2013 has severely weakened the emergence of genuine political leadership. Local councils, he noted, were — and should remain — the pathway for producing real representatives who understand and serve their communities, rather than merely echoing a single political voice. The weak performance of parliament over the past decade, he argued, reflects deep structural flaws in the democratic process.
Did the Higher Elections Committee Fulfill Its Role?
During the first phase of the elections — before results were announced and even before the president’s statement calling for an investigation into violations — Judge Ahmed Bendary insisted that the National Elections Authority had not detected any irregularities during the voting process. The declaration sparked wide controversy over its credibility, especially as complaints and violations later surfaced in several constituencies. The absence of clarity regarding the actors responsible for these breaches, and the failure to initiate legal procedures, raised mounting questions among politicians and observers about the Authority’s seriousness in safeguarding electoral integrity.
Human rights lawyer Malek Adly, executive director of the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights, explained to Zawia3 that the National Elections Authority holds a dual mandate when confronting electoral violations. The first is an administrative mandate: it may annul elections in whole districts, exclude candidates, or invalidate ballot boxes or subcommittees to ensure the integrity of voting and counting. The second concerns violations that constitute criminal offenses, such as ballot tampering or offering money to voters — matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecution. In these cases, the Authority’s role is to refer the accused along with supporting evidence, but it has no power to investigate or prosecute directly.
Adly noted that violations fall into two categories. The first includes administrative violations: counting or tallying errors, preventing candidate agents from monitoring the count, or opening and closing polling stations at illegal times. Here, the Authority intervenes with its administrative decisions to maintain proper conduct of the election. The second category includes criminal violations: acts that constitute electoral crimes under the law, such as forging ballots or buying votes, which are referred to the Public Prosecution accompanied by video and written evidence.
He added that some offenders whose actions may constitute new criminal violations could be members of bodies such as the Administrative Prosecution or the State Lawsuits Authority, which would require the NEA to contact their respective institutions to initiate procedures for lifting immunity before prosecutors can carry out investigations.
Adly stressed that the Authority is obligated to disclose details of violations — and did announce some in its press conference — including campaign materials distributed at polling stations and tallying errors that led to the annulment of results in certain districts. Other districts, he said, were not annulled because the violations did not have a decisive impact on the overall results.
In parallel, lawyer and human rights advocate Suzanne Nada argued that the Elections Authority displayed a clear lack of neutrality in many polling committees. She told Zawia3 that major flaws began with the exclusion of several candidates for unclear or dubious reasons — such as failure to obtain military service exemptions or remaining classified as reservists — and in other cases, targeting certain MPs with unsubstantiated accusations of drug use.
Nada emphasized that recent directives from the president himself regarding the need for neutrality and transparency — coming from the head of the executive branch — raised serious questions about the independence of the judicial committee and its ability to administer the electoral process freely and impartially.
Regarding the rerun of elections, Nada said, “There is hope for enhanced transparency and genuine measures to ensure electoral integrity, and to prevent the recurrence of previous violations. This includes monitoring campaign spending and preventing the exploitation of citizens’ needs to buy their votes — practices that reached between 200 and 500 pounds per vote, or even basic goods in some constituencies. Such acts degrade both citizens and the state. Those responsible must be held accountable to ensure they do not happen again.”
Accountability for Those Involved?
Despite repeated references to election-related violations, the National Elections Authority has yet to name those responsible or clarify whether any measures will be taken to prevent their recurrence. In this context, former MP Freddy El-Bayadi, now a parliamentary candidate for the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, told Zawia3 that while the steps taken following the president’s call are appreciated, one essential point cannot be overlooked: “It is imperative to publicly disclose the nature of the violations and hold every person involved accountable — regardless of their position — whether candidates, voters, supervisors, or any official who participated or turned a blind eye.”
El-Bayadi emphasized that failing to expose the facts and sanction those at fault leaves the door open for the same abuses to resurface in every electoral cycle. “Without full transparency and real accountability,” he said, “there can be no genuine deterrent. Transparency is not optional; it is the only safeguard for respecting the people’s will and preserving the integrity of the electoral process.” He concluded by stressing that Egyptians deserve an election that is fair and transparent, free of exceptions and infractions.
A similar view is shared by journalist Mohamed Saad Abdel Hafiz, board member and deputy head of the Journalists’ Syndicate, who argues that it is essential “to hold accountable all those responsible for these violations — whether candidates or any other actors involved in the electoral process, from the beginning until the vote-counting stage — because punishment is an integral part of electoral deterrence.”
Abdel Hafiz expressed hope that the authorities will reveal those responsible, refer them to investigation, and impose sanctions — steps he believes should take place as soon as possible, before the second phase or the rerun elections begin.
Looking ahead, he noted that the president’s intervention and the review of affected districts will shape key organizational aspects of the upcoming rounds, including regulating campaign activity, ensuring that candidate agents can attend vote counts, and guaranteeing the delivery of tally sheets from subcommittees.
Yet Abdel Hafiz stressed that these measures will not change the political essence of the electoral process. “These steps will not produce a parliament that reflects the full will of the people,” he said. “It will yield a parliament dominated by pro-government forces, due to an electoral law that enshrined a closed-list system and denied the opposition its rightful representation through proportional lists. We are heading toward a repeat of 2015 and 2020 — a parliament more loyal to the authorities than representative of citizens. Parliaments are meant to hold governments accountable on behalf of the people, but this parliament will continue siding with the government at the expense of the public.”
National Elections Authority head Hazem Badawy had earlier announced that the National List for Egypt won the closed-list seats in all Upper Egypt districts — North, Central, and South — after receiving more than 5 percent of valid votes. Roughly 588,016 voters rejected the list, representing 7 percent of total valid ballots (8,323,873 votes), and around 2 percent of all registered voters (35,279,922 citizens).
The National List for Egypt was the only list contesting the closed-list system, and it included several pro-government parties such as Mostaqbal Watan, Homat Watan, and the National Front Party, alongside Al-Adl, Al-Wafd, the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, Al-Islah wal-Tanmiya, and the Youth Coordination of Parties and Politicians.
Despite annulling results in 19 constituencies and scheduling reruns in December — along with preparing for phase two of the parliamentary elections — the controversy over fairness and neutrality remains unresolved. Human-rights advocates, legal experts, and independent observers insist that holding those responsible to account and applying full transparency are essential to protecting voters’ will. They argue that administrative fixes alone are insufficient to create an electoral climate that reflects the public’s true choices.
The question now is whether the measures taken by the Higher Elections Committee will genuinely reassure citizens, calm tensions, and produce a parliament that represents them — or whether the next parliament will remain constrained by laws that have limited the opposition’s ability to compete freely.
