Within just a few days, Veto newspaper and journalist Islam El-Raghy from the Akhbar Al-Youm institution became targets of official complaints. The Ministry of Transport threatened to take legal action against Veto before later backing down, while El-Raghy was arrested and referred to criminal court after a local official filed a complaint against him over a Facebook post in which he criticized garbage accumulation and the lack of street lighting in his village.
These incidents coincided with President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s meeting with leaders of state-owned media, during which he called for reinforcing the principle of “opinion and counter-opinion” and encouraging public debate. However, the reality contradicted that call, as official complaints became a tool for prosecuting any journalistic content or critical opinion—even when published on a personal social media account.
These cases are not exceptions; they reflect a growing pattern of using official complaints to confront journalistic criticism and public accountability—a pattern that began years ago and continues to expand amid the absence of accurate official data on the number of complaints filed by state institutions.
El-Raghy Referred to Criminal Court After Criticizing Local Official
On August 24, the Journalists’ Syndicate was surprised by news of the detention of journalist Islam El-Raghy and his referral to the criminal court, based on a complaint filed by the head of the local unit in the village of Meet El-Sheikh, accusing him of defamation and insult via social media, following a post in which he criticized service conditions in his village. Although the Ministry of Local Development denied that the arrest was related to this criticism—stating that the procedures were due to “previous judicial rulings”—the incident sparked widespread controversy, especially after both El-Raghy and the syndicate confirmed that the recent complaint was the direct reason for his detention.
The next day, the prosecution ordered El-Raghy’s release, following an urgent intervention by Journalists’ Syndicate President Khaled El-Balshy, who submitted an official complaint to the Public Prosecutor demanding his release.
Human rights lawyer Ali Ayyoub, who represented El-Raghy, confirmed in his statement to Zawia3 that the complaint was indeed filed by the head of the local unit, and that the case initially started at the Economic Court, which ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, before it was transferred to the Criminal Court. He added that the attempt to execute the arrest warrant against his client was carried out in an unusual manner, as a lawyer in Faraskour used several tuk-tuks and his private car, claiming there was a new report of insult and defamation—leading to El-Raghy’s temporary detention, before the Faraskour prosecution released him.
Ayyoub explained that he accompanied his client to the Damietta court to appear before the Public Prosecution in the case filed by the head of the local unit, noting that El-Raghy’s journalistic status was not mentioned in the investigation file. Once the Chief Prosecutor was informed of his status, an official certificate from the Journalists’ Syndicate was requested and later obtained by the defense.
Ayyoub based his defense on Article (32) of the Law Regulating the Press and Media, which prohibits imposing a criminal penalty on a journalist for criticizing a public official or someone assigned to public service, unless bad faith or false information is proven. He also referred to Article (302), paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, amended by Laws 93 of 1995 and 147 of 2006, which permits criticism of public officials within the scope of their duties if made in good faith.
He pointed out that the Public Prosecutor followed the investigation after receiving the syndicate’s complaint and issued a decision to release El-Raghy pending the case.
Commenting on the case, Ayyoub stated that there is a general atmosphere of intolerance toward criticism within state institutions, and that the recourse of some officials to file complaints against citizens and journalists reflects a bureaucratic mentality that favors legal prosecution over dialogue or responding to simple demands—such as garbage removal or improving service levels.
Don’t miss: Fragile Paper: An Existential Crisis for State-Owned Newspapers in Egypt
Minister of Transport Threatens to Sue Egyptian Newspaper
Just days before El-Raghy’s case, another crisis erupted involving Minister of Transport Kamel El-Wazir, following a report published by Veto titled “The Republic of Advisors: A Shadow Government Costing Millions Raises Questions About Their Roles.” The report criticized the appointment of advisors, describing some as honorary positions that burden the state budget without real contributions. This angered the minister, who announced his intention to file a complaint with the Public Prosecutor and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR). However, amid growing union criticism—and a firm statement from Journalists’ Syndicate President Khaled El-Balshy asserting that “the legal way to correct information is through the right of reply, not complaints”—the minister backed down from filing the complaint with the prosecution and opted instead for an administrative route via the SCMR, before ultimately retreating from that step as well.
The Ministry of Transport withdrew both the complaint and the referral to the Supreme Council for Media Regulation—a move welcomed by the Journalists’ Syndicate, which considered it an indication of the importance of professional dialogue and the press’s right to publish, with respect for the right of reply rather than pursuing journalists through legal or administrative complaints.
Commenting on the growing trend of officials and ministers filing complaints against journalists, Iman Aouf—member of the Journalists’ Syndicate Board and Chair of the Freedoms Committee—tells Zawia3: “Some officials treat the press as an enemy or adversary, even though it represents a core component of soft power—like culture and media. Confronting it with hostility, threats, or legal prosecution is a grave mistake. The law and syndicate regulations offer clear solutions to any dispute, foremost among them the universally guaranteed right of reply.”
She adds: “The real crisis lies in the absence of information and the refusal of official sources to respond to journalists’ inquiries. In fact, many officials wait for ‘permission’ before making any statement, which contradicts both the law and the constitution. This vacuum in information flow makes the journalist’s job harder and increases the likelihood of mistakes.”
The head of the Freedoms Committee believes the solution does not lie in fines or lawsuits, but in access to information and empowering officials to speak transparently. “If information were readily available through clear official channels, then a journalist could be held accountable for publishing errors through the syndicate—which is the body responsible for overseeing its members.”
Aouf concludes her remarks by saying: “The problem is that some officials do not distinguish between the various authorities. For example, the Ministry of Transport at one point announced it would refer the matter to the National Press and Media Authority, then spoke of a legal complaint, then of the SCMR—this is a clear confusion of roles, while the syndicate is the only body legally authorized to hold union-affiliated journalists accountable.”
In line with the president’s call to promote a culture of “opinion and counter-opinion,” and in an effort to obtain an official response, Zawia3 contacted Mohamed Ezz El-Din, spokesperson for the Ministry of Transport, to inquire about the reasons for threatening to go to the Public Prosecutor instead of exercising the right of reply, and why the SCMR was chosen over the Journalists’ Syndicate.
However, the spokesperson responded in a hostile tone, questioning the outlet’s license, its publishing location, and the nationality of the report’s author—asking whether she had a permit from the SCMR. When informed that the report’s author is an Egyptian union-affiliated journalist and a member of the Journalists’ Syndicate, he said: “I don’t know you, and I don’t know who you are… How do you expect me to just talk to you like that? I need to know who I’m talking to,” demanding that her name, the website link, and the questions be sent via WhatsApp. Despite sending the requested information, Zawia3 had not received a response by the time of this report’s publication.
Egyptian laws regulating journalism clearly outline mechanisms for addressing professional violations, beginning with the right of reply and correction before resorting to legal action. According to the Journalists’ Syndicate Law No. 76 of 1970, a “Preliminary Disciplinary Committee” is established within the syndicate to handle such cases, making it the primary body for accountability.
Additionally, the Law Regulating the Press and Media No. 180 of 2018 mandates that newspapers and websites publish corrections within three days or in the next issue and publish replies attributed to their sources with equal prominence. The law emphasizes that imprisonment in publishing cases is an exception and may only be used in explicitly specified cases.
As for the Egyptian Constitution, Article (68) affirms citizens’ right to access information, data, statistics, and official documents, and obliges the state to provide and regulate access, confidentiality, and grievance mechanisms.
The State vs. Press Criticism
The El-Raghy and Veto crises fall within a recurring pattern seen in the Egyptian press landscape over recent years, where various state institutions have resorted to filing official complaints against journalists as a means of controlling criticism or exerting pressure on independent media outlets.
In 1992, tensions flared between then-President Hosni Mubarak and the press. That year witnessed several incidents that reflected his concern over journalistic reports he deemed inaccurate or false.
In one of his speeches, Mubarak openly threatened legal action against newspapers that published what he called “lies.” He linked these threats to reports in the press about government corruption, stating that such coverage was not only defaming him personally but distorting the image of the government and the regime as a whole.
In 2008, the Cairo Court of Appeals sentenced opposition newspaper Al-Dostour‘s editor-in-chief Ibrahim Eissa to two months in prison in a case related to publishing rumors about the health of former President Hosni Mubarak. The verdict followed a complaint filed by the State Security Agency to the Public Prosecution, accusing Eissa of “spreading false news about the president’s health that could harm public interest and the national economy,” based on a story in Al-Dostour about Mubarak’s deteriorating health. Later, the presidency issued a pardon for Ibrahim Eissa, officially closing the case.
After the January Revolution and during the presidency of the late Mohamed Morsi, the Presidency filed a complaint against journalist Gamal Fahmy, who was then the Deputy Head of the Journalists’ Syndicate. The complaint, submitted by the Central Legal Affairs Department of the Presidency, accused Fahmy of insulting the president and publishing false information due to comments he made in a TV interview regarding the killing of journalist Al-Husseiny Abu Deif—an incident that stirred widespread controversy in both journalistic and political circles at the time.
The Presidency also filed another complaint against the independent newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm, accusing it of spreading false news after it published a story on its website about then-President Morsi visiting Maadi Military Hospital, where former President Mubarak was receiving treatment. The newspaper later apologized. Eventually, the late president dropped the complaints following both internal and external pressure.
In recent years, several government officials have filed complaints against journalists, most notably the complaint filed by the Ministry of Interior with the Public Prosecutor against journalist and editor-in-chief Khaled Salah and journalist El-Sayed Falah, accusing them of disturbing public peace and security, after publishing a report on an attack targeting a presidential vehicle. The Ministry of Interior later dropped the complaint.
In discussing the history of officials resorting to suing journalists, lawyer Ali Ayyoub refers to the case of Dr. Mohamed Zahran, head of the Gifted Education Department at the Ministry of Education and a member of the 2014 Constitution Education Committee, who faced a complaint in 2020 from then-Education Minister Tarek Shawki after criticizing the “tablet” system in secondary schools. Zahran’s trial ended with a suspended six-month sentence after a series of economic and criminal court proceedings. Ayyoub criticized the minister’s actions, considering it a misuse of legal recourse for an official of that level to prosecute an educational leader over a Facebook post.
Ayyoub believes such cases highlight the absence of channels for dialogue between officials and citizens and warns that the continuation of these practices risks turning Egypt into a “police state” instead of a “state of law.”
In the same context, lawyer Yasser Saad tells Zawia3: “Since 2008, ministries and governors have begun filing complaints in their own names, under the pretext of promoting decentralization—whereby each institution moves through its legal department to confront what it considers violations.” He cited the complaint filed by the Governor of Fayoum in 2008 against several independent journalists for practicing the profession without being registered with the syndicate—an unprecedented move that was later used as a model in similar complaints even after 2011.
Saad points out that the majority of these complaints and procedures fall outside the scope of law and the constitution and conflict with freedom of opinion and expression. He adds: “Instead of clearly defining the jurisdiction of each body, we see broad overlap, with ministries and agencies filing complaints in matters that aren’t within their authority—whether regarding journalistic criticism or even social media posts.”
Saad concludes by stating that, in practice, these complaints achieve no administrative or legal objective: they do not improve institutional performance nor produce real outcomes. They are often shelved or abandoned—unless the state decides to push them toward prosecution. Therefore, he argues, they are essentially frivolous complaints used as tools of pressure, intimidation, and distraction through side battles, rather than legitimate legal or constitutional mechanisms.
You’re Not Alone… Officials’ Complaints Now Target Citizens Too
The use of legal complaints is no longer limited to journalists and media professionals. In recent years, it has extended to target ordinary citizens and union members. In mid-August of this year, security forces arrested Abdel Rahman Khaled after he published a video on his personal Facebook page. The video featured a fictional promotional scene for the opening of the Grand Egyptian Museum, depicting famous public figures in an unofficial advertising context.
Abdel Rahman was arrested following a complaint filed by the Ministry of Tourism against the content creator. The ministry issued an official statement disavowing the published video and stating that it “does not represent the official advertisement for the Grand Egyptian Museum,” which is scheduled to officially open on November 1.
The young man had clarified that the video carried no official tone. He included a disclaimer disassociating himself from any state authority, describing the video as a personal “gift” driven by patriotic sentiment. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Tourism described the video as “fake content that constitutes a clear violation of intellectual property rights and public performance,” announcing that it had notified security agencies and taken all legal measures against him.
Lawyer Ali Ayyoub was present during the interrogation of the content creator. He explained that the prosecution released him after a five-hour investigation based on a complaint from the Minister of Tourism and Antiquities regarding an AI-generated fictional video about the museum’s opening—even though the young man had indicated the use of AI technology when posting the video. Ayyoub denied media claims that the Minister of Tourism had withdrawn the complaint, affirming that the release decision came from the Public Prosecutor, given the young man’s age and good intent.
Officials’ complaints have also targeted professional unions. On May 29, the Public Prosecution released Dr. Khaled Amin—Assistant Secretary-General of the Medical Syndicate and a board member—on the guarantee of his residence after questioning him in an investigation initiated by an official complaint filed by the Minister of Health and Population, Dr. Khaled Abdel Ghaffar. This marks the first time a Health Minister in Egypt has filed a complaint against an elected member of the Medical Syndicate’s board—an unprecedented move that stirred strong reactions within the medical and union communities.
The complaint, filed under No. 1906 of 2025 at the Third October Police Department, was submitted by the Ministry of Health, citing media statements by Dr. Khaled Amin regarding rising rates of doctor migration, low salaries, and the deteriorating work environment in the public health sector. He was summoned for investigation by the October Prosecution Office and was charged with “spreading false news likely to incite panic and confusion within the medical community” in the wake of those statements.
The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms viewed the support for Dr. Khaled Amin, a member of the Medical Syndicate, as part of the broader defense of union freedoms and the right to participate in public affairs. It rejected any attempts to suppress dissenting union voices and stressed the need to protect professional syndicates in defending their members’ rights—especially in vital sectors like healthcare, where repeated crises have driven medical staff toward emigration.
In this context, Ilham Eidaroos, co-founder of the under-establishment Bread and Freedom Party, told Zawia3: “The recent complaints—or even threats of complaints—from ministers against journalists, unionists, or citizens reveal a prevailing mindset among some official institutions that sees citizens’ voices—expressed through unions or the press—as a threat to be silenced rather than a right to be respected.”
Eidaroos adds: “In any country that respects its constitution and institutions, it would be natural for the Ministry of Health to respond to criticism with official statements clarifying the facts or refuting what it sees as inaccurate. The Ministry of Transport, too, should have announced its readiness to investigate the appointments issue, with oversight agencies stepping in. But what happened is that both the Tourism and Health ministries resorted to complaints—then withdrew them. This reflects a trend of intimidating the public, not respecting their rights.”
Regarding the complaint filed by the Ministry of Tourism against the creator of the AI-generated video about the museum, Eidaroos noted: “This case is slightly different. If there was real harm, it should have been the individuals whose likenesses appeared in the video—such as Messi or Ronaldo—who filed complaints, not the ministry.”
She concludes: “Anyone in the world has the right to create a promotional video about any historical or touristic site. The government’s role should be limited to setting clear public guidelines for AI use in advertising, not chasing content creators with complaints.”
The trend of officials and ministers filing complaints against journalists, unionists, and citizens raises serious questions about the future of transparency and freedom of expression as guaranteed by law and the constitution. It also calls into question the real boundaries of press freedom in light of this growing pattern of official complaints—and highlights the contradiction between the political leadership’s public calls for freedom of expression and the practical actions that attempt to suppress criticism through legal threats or judicial channels.
