Controversy has erupted in Egypt’s political scene over the past few days after several opposition candidates were excluded from the final lists of parliamentary nominees — a development that has reignited debate over the limits of political participation and the integrity of the electoral process. While the National Election Authority insists it is fully committed to the law and applies it equally to all, civil parties and human rights advocates say what happened reflects a growing clampdown on democratic forces seeking to compete, and that broad interpretations of certain legal provisions are now being used in ways that undermine pluralism in the upcoming parliament.
In recent days, two candidates from the Socialist Popular Alliance Party were excluded from the final lists of nominees for the parliamentary elections. Both had filed lawsuits in an attempt to be reinstated but the Administrative Court rejected the appeals submitted by engineer Haitham El-Hariri, a member of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party and candidate for the Karmouz district in Alexandria, and by Mohamed Abdel-Halim, the party’s candidate for the Mansoura district, against the National Election Authority’s decision to exclude them from the candidate lists for the 2025 House of Representatives elections. The court’s ruling rendered their exclusion final and binding, meaning they are now officially out of the parliamentary race.
Days earlier, the National Election Authority had disqualified Ahmed El-Sherbiny, a member of the Dostour Party, before his appeal was later accepted and he was reinstated on the candidates list, according to a party statement. Human rights advocates and politicians say that what happened to the two members of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, and the obstacles faced by the Dostour Party member, illustrate the tightening restrictions on civil and democratic parties trying to compete for individual seats — a trend that empties the electoral process of its pluralistic substance and reproduces a parliament dominated by a single bloc, amid shrinking chances for genuine representation of democratic and civic forces.
The exclusion of candidates due to the lack of prior exemption from military service has been a striking and controversial trend since its enforcement during the Senate elections (the parliament’s upper chamber) held last August. At that time, three candidates from the Nour Party were disqualified for not having performed military service or obtained a legal exemption — including the party’s deputy chairman, El-Sayed Mostafa Khalifa.
The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed that candidacy is a restricted right requiring either completion of military service or an official legal exemption, and that anyone who evades service cannot run for office. This rule was strictly applied in the 2025 Senate elections, where courts rejected most appeals from disqualified candidates, emphasizing that exemption must be granted through an official decree, not as a discretionary exception.
This development unfolds within a broader debate over the closed absolute list system recently approved by parliament, which replaced the proportional representation model that had allowed broader participation of smaller and independent political forces. The change drew criticism and rejection from several parties and political groups who argue that proportional representation ensures fairer and more inclusive participation for all political currents.
Opposition forces represented by the Civil Democratic Movement — a coalition of opposition parties and public figures — believe that the closed list system excludes independent voices and entrenches the dominance of a single political current over parliament. They argue that it empties the elections of their pluralistic and democratic essence, turning electoral lists into tools for ensuring political loyalty rather than reflecting genuine popular will. This position was reiterated by members of the movement during a press conference held on May 26.
In a joint statement signed by several political parties — including the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, the Egyptian Socialist Party, and the Revolutionary Socialists — along with a number of public figures and human rights defenders such as lawyer Khaled Ali, Amr Hashem Rabie (member of the National Dialogue Board of Trustees), and Gamal Zahran (professor of economics and political science and former MP), the signatories described the exclusions as a blatant assault on the essence of democracy and a systematic attempt to strip political life of its vitality, turning elections into a mere ritual that beautifies the face of authoritarianism rather than expressing the people’s will.
The statement recalled the era of late former president Hosni Mubarak, noting that in 2010 the authorities believed that eliminating the opposition would bring stability — only for anger to explode in January 2011.
It added that excluding candidates regardless of their affiliations proves that the crisis lies not in the individuals but in the very principle itself: the aim is a parliament without opposition, a public sphere without criticism, and a political scene without life. “Those who seek to kill politics do not abolish it,” the statement said, “they merely push it into the streets — into anger and despair. When the doors of democracy are closed, the windows of explosion open.”
Inside Egypt’s Divided Opposition: Why the Civil Movement Couldn’t Form One Electoral Alliance
Contradictory Drug Test Results from the Same Laboratory
On October 21, the competent court rejected the appeal filed by candidate Mohamed Abdel-Halim, a member of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, against his exclusion from the preliminary lists of nominees for the House of Representatives elections in the Mansoura district, making his disqualification final and unappealable.
In a statement issued after the ruling, his campaign affirmed that it “remains committed to the legal and democratic path until the right to run and contest the elections is restored.” Abdel-Halim had been surprised by his exclusion from the preliminary lists on the grounds of “drug use,” as he was informed by the relevant authority, without being provided with any official document detailing the accusation or granting him the opportunity to defend himself.
Abdel-Halim quickly returned to the laboratories of the Ministry of Health — the same authority that had conducted the initial test — and requested a new examination without disclosing his identity as a parliamentary candidate. The new result, officially stamped with the Egyptian state emblem (the Eagle of Saladin), conclusively confirmed that he had not used any narcotic substances.
This contradiction between two results issued by the same authority sparked a wave of controversy in political and legal circles. Human rights lawyer Khaled Ali described the incident as a scandal that exposed “contradictory test results from the same laboratories,” adding that “if there is a desire to exclude someone, exclusion alone would suffice — there is no need to tarnish a person’s reputation and honor in this way.”
In addition to the exclusion of Haitham El-Hariri and Mohamed Abdel-Halim, lawyer Mohamed Abu El-Diyar — former spokesperson for presidential candidate Ahmed El-Tantawy’s campaign — was surprised to find his name deleted from the voter database. The move prevented him from running or exercising his political rights, despite possessing an official certificate issued only two months earlier confirming his inclusion in the same database during the Senate elections.
The Administrative Court rejected Abu El-Diyar’s appeal against his exclusion, citing a default judgment issued in February 2024 sentencing him to one year in prison with labor and a bail of 20,000 pounds ($416.67) to suspend the sentence, in Case No. 16336 of 2023 (Matareya Misdemeanors), referred by the Supreme State Security Prosecution and publicly known as the “Ahmed El-Tantawy Authorizations Case.”
Senate Elections in Egypt: Forced Crowds and Scenes of Apathy
From Disqualification to “Reserve Status”
While the National Election Authority accepted the appeal of Ahmed El-Sherbiny, a member of the Dostour Party and a candidate within the “Free Path” coalition, after his initial exclusion on the grounds that “he remains in the Armed Forces reserve,” it simultaneously rejected the appeal of Haitham El-Hariri, a member of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, despite his defense team submitting an official document — a valid exemption certificate issued by the Ministry of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 127 of 1980.
Former MP Haitham El-Hariri, who previously served in parliament during the 2015–2020 term and ran again in the following elections using the same officially approved documents — reaching the runoff stage, as he confirms in his interview with us — was surprised this year by his exclusion from the preliminary lists, followed by the rejection of his appeal on the grounds of “not performing military service,” despite possessing an official exemption certificate issued by the Armed Forces.
Politicians and human rights advocates viewed this as a clear contradiction between the two cases, reflecting double standards in the adjudication of electoral appeals, especially since both candidates had submitted documents issued by official state authorities.
El-Hariri expressed his firm rejection of his exclusion from the preliminary lists of parliamentary candidates, describing the ruling as one that “neither represents justice nor reflects any form of political or legal fairness.”
Speaking to Zawia3, El-Hariri said: “It is politically unacceptable for an entire family to be deprived of its political right to run for office without any conviction or crime. Is it conceivable that my children and grandchildren could be disqualified in the future simply because I was exempted from military service? No constitution or law permits such discrimination — it violates the most basic principles of justice.”
In response, the Central Committee of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party unanimously voted to withdraw from the parliamentary elections during a meeting named “The Haitham El-Hariri and Mohamed Abdel-Halim Session,” honoring the party’s two excluded candidates.
In a statement issued after the meeting — a copy of which was obtained by Zawia3 — the party said its withdrawal was in protest of what it described as the “widespread violations” that marred the electoral process, foremost among them the deliberate exclusion of opposition and independent candidates. The party added that these actions reflect “a complete absence of justice and equal opportunity,” turning the elections into a mere procedural formality that fails to express the popular will.
El-Hariri’s exclusion stems from a legal interpretation related to military service. After graduating from the Faculty of Engineering in 1999, he reported for duty, but the Ministry of Defense officially exempted him by ministerial decree, in accordance with the powers granted under Paragraph (4) of Article (6) of the Military Service Law, which allows for certain exemptions “for reasons related to the public interest and national security,” according to human rights lawyer Khaled Ali.
Ali cited a previous ruling by the Administrative Court in Beni Suef in a similar case, where the court held that “the committee’s decision to exclude the candidate lacks a sound legal and factual basis and constitutes a clear violation of the law, which requires its annulment and the correction of the matter by including the candidate’s name in the final list for the 2025 parliamentary elections, with the judgment executed in its draft form without notification.”
Commenting on El-Hariri’s exclusion and the rejection of his appeal, human rights lawyer Negad El-Borai told Zawia3 that exemption from military service “does not deprive a citizen of his constitutional rights to run for office or vote,” since the candidate had placed himself at the disposal of the Armed Forces, and the exemption was issued by the competent military authority — not by personal choice — which effectively makes him “legally exempted” from service. With irony, El-Borai added that “it is all a coincidence that such an issue arises with an opposition MP from a leftist party.”
Haitham El-Hariri is the son of the late labor leader and veteran leftist Abu El-Ezz El-Hariri, one of the most prominent figures of Egypt’s socialist movement and a founding member of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party. The family has long been known for its oppositional stance and its defense of social justice and workers’ rights.
Abu El-Ezz El-Hariri was elected to the People’s Assembly multiple times since the 1980s and became known for his courage in confronting corruption and defending the rights of the poor and the working class. His outspoken rhetoric and sharp criticism of successive governments made him a target of security persecution — he was detained and imprisoned several times for his political activism and defense of trade union freedoms and social justice.
70 Million for a Seat: The Price of Entering Egypt’s Parliament
A Dangerous Precedent in Parliamentary History
Zohdy El-Shamy, deputy chairman of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, described the exclusion of several candidates from the Civil Democratic Current from the electoral lists as “a full-fledged political and legal scandal.” He considered what happened to former MP Haitham El-Hariri “a dangerous precedent in Egypt’s electoral history,” especially since El-Hariri had previously run twice using the same documents — winning a parliamentary seat in one of those elections — without any legal objections ever being raised regarding his eligibility.
Speaking to Zawia3, El-Shamy said that the Socialist Popular Alliance Party “is paying the price for its recent political stances,” whether for boycotting the National Dialogue or for its position during the latest presidential election, in which it adopted the slogan “Two Terms Are Enough,” calling on President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi not to seek a third term. He emphasized that the previous two terms had witnessed a clear deterioration in both political and economic conditions.
For his part, Ahmed El-Sherbiny, a member of the Dostour Party and candidate within the Free Path coalition, said that accepting his appeal against his initial exclusion from the parliamentary candidate lists represented “a correction of a situation that had raised serious questions.” He explained that the justification for his exclusion — that he remained on the Armed Forces reserve list — reflected, in his words, “an expansive interpretation of the legal text that the legislator never intended.”
El-Sherbiny told Zawia3 that he served in the military for 14 months and obtained an official certificate of honorable service as a regular soldier. He stressed that his legal status “is entirely sound and fully compliant with the constitutional conditions for candidacy,” noting that the Constitution explicitly states that a candidate must have performed military service or been legally exempted, without any mention of reserve status or the possibility of being recalled.
He added that the continued listing of conscripts on the reserve rolls after completing service “is a routine administrative procedure that applies to everyone who has served,” and that using this as grounds for disqualification constitutes “an unconstitutional interpretation.” Most who complete military service, he explained, remain listed as reservists for up to nine years — which means, in his words, “a large segment of Egypt’s youth could be deprived of their constitutional right to run for office.”
Meanwhile, the Justice Party expressed its rejection of the exclusion of several candidates from the parliamentary elections, asserting that such measures contradict the principles of the Egyptian Constitution and citizens’ right to political participation, candidacy, and voting without discrimination or arbitrariness.
The party also rejected what it described as a “narrow interpretation” adopted by the National Election Authority of a previous Supreme Administrative Court ruling — an interpretation that was used to justify excluding several opposition-aligned candidates, including former MP Haitham El-Hariri and the party’s candidate for the Menouf–Sadat district, Abdel-Rahman Farghaly, under the pretext of exemption from military service.
The Justice Party concluded its statement by calling for a review of this approach in order to uphold the constitutional principles of equality and equal opportunity, and to ensure free and pluralistic elections that genuinely reflect the will of the people.
The Beginning
In its rulings disqualifying Haitham El-Hariri and Mohamed Abdel-Halim, the Administrative Court adhered to the precedent set by the Supreme Administrative Court during the most recent Senate elections, which held that those exempted from military service may not run for parliamentary seats. In July, as preparations began for the Senate elections, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the National Election Authority’s decision to exclude three candidates from the Nour Party on the grounds that they had been exempted from military service — a move considered the first of its kind in Egypt’s electoral history.
Although the three candidates had submitted proof that they had reported for military service, the authority based its decision on Paragraph (4) of Article (6) of the Military and National Service Law No. 127 of 1980, which authorizes the Minister of Defense to exempt certain individuals “for reasons related to the public interest or national security.”
However, on July 14, 2024, the Administrative Court in Beni Suef issued a different ruling. It accepted the appeal filed by Dr. Ahmed Yehia Abdel-Hamid Wazir, secretary of the Nour Party in the governorate and the party’s individual candidate for the Senate elections, affirming his right to return to the final list of nominees. The court explained in its reasoning that anyone officially exempted from military service should be treated as legally exempt, citing Articles (6) and (7) of the Military Service Law No. 127 of 1980 and Minister of Defense Decree No. 115 of 1981.
The ruling thus established a legal principle that an exemption granted by an official decree of the Minister of Defense does not constitute evasion of conscription and does not deprive a citizen of his constitutional rights to run for office or vote.
In this context, human rights lawyer Yasser Saad argued that the National Election Authority’s decisions to exclude certain candidates reflected an unjustified expansion in interpreting legal provisions related to military service — contradicting established administrative court rulings that have been consistent since before 2011.
Speaking to Zawia3, Saad explained: “The Supreme Administrative Court’s rulings were very clear on this matter. What is required regarding military service status is simply that the citizen present himself to the conscription authority within the legal time frame. Even if he later exceeded the age of thirty or postponed his service and subsequently reconciled and regularized his status, he still retains the right to run in elections.”
He added that the authority’s expansive interpretation “has no legal or constitutional foundation” and constitutes a restriction on a fundamental right — the right to political participation and candidacy. Excluding a candidate who had already served as a member of parliament, Saad continued, “reveals that the authority is acting under explicit instructions that go beyond the law.”
Concluding his remarks, Saad warned that “the next parliament will be a parliament of presidential representation — a prelude to approving new constitutional amendments that would allow an additional presidential term. What we are witnessing now is merely an introductory act paving the way for such a parliament.”
Selective Disqualification as “Twisting the Law”
Human rights lawyer Malek Adly believes that the National Election Authority’s decision to exclude certain candidates from the recent parliamentary elections “raises a fundamental question: does the Authority have the right to disqualify specific candidates?” His answer: “No.”
Speaking to Zawia3, Adly explained that “what happened falls squarely within the framework of political targeting and the elimination of opposition candidates, based on interpretations that have no grounding in the law, the Constitution, or the rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court.”
He added that the Egyptian Constitution, when setting the conditions for parliamentary candidacy, established only four criteria: “that the candidate be at least 25 years old, hold Egyptian nationality, possess at least a basic education certificate, and fulfill the other conditions stipulated by the House of Representatives Law.”
Adly explained that the House of Representatives Law added only one additional condition — related to military service — stating that a candidate must have “performed military service or been legally exempted from it,” as per the provisions of Military Service Law No. 127 of 1981.
He noted that Article 6 (d) of that law grants the Minister of Defense the authority to exempt certain individuals from military service “for reasons related to the public interest or national security.” This means, Adly said, that there are situations in which the state may deem it in the public interest not to conscript certain individuals — such as prominent athletes, scientists, or pioneers representing Egypt internationally.
He added: “Some individuals may also be exempted for political or security reasons — for example, being the child of a well-known political dissident, an opposition activist themselves, or married to a foreign national, or in cases where their presence in the military could cause political or security complications. In such cases, the Ministry of Defense issues a formal exemption in the interest of public welfare or national security.”
Adly clarified that these decisions are made individually and do not constitute a general rule, stressing that “in some cases, the military does accept individuals with political activity — such as activist Mohamed Adel of the April 6 Movement, who served in the military despite facing political charges — proving that the decision lies entirely within the discretionary powers of the Minister of Defense.”
He pointed out that some individuals affected by exemption decisions have filed cases before the Administrative Court seeking to overturn them, but the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed those cases, ruling that the plaintiffs “had no legal standing,” since exemption or exclusion from service “does not diminish civil or political rights and carries no deprivation of privileges enjoyed by those who performed military service.”
The court, Adly noted, reasoned that exemption certificates issued by the Armed Forces are considered official documents valid for appointment to public office. Accordingly, exempted individuals may serve as judges, diplomats, auditors in the Central Auditing Organization, or even as Central Bank governors, ministers, or prime ministers.
“Therefore,” Adly continued, “to claim that such a person is unfit only for membership in parliament — but eligible for every other position — is legally and logically inconsistent. It is a deliberate twisting of the law intended to block specific individuals from candidacy.” He emphasized that this manipulation of legal texts “unnecessarily implicates the Ministry of Defense in politically motivated accusations.”
He further explained: “The ministry has every right to determine that conscripting politically active individuals is not in the public or security interest — that is understandable. But it cannot later use this as grounds to deny them political rights, because the law provides no such authority.”
Adly concluded that the only individuals barred from candidacy or public office are those identified in Minister of Defense Decree No. 115 of 1981, which exempts from military service anyone convicted of serious crimes such as rape, sexual assault, armed robbery, debauchery, or same-sex conduct, as well as those previously convicted in criminal or political cases. The files of such individuals are reviewed by a committee including representatives from Military Intelligence, Military Investigations, and the Recruitment Administration before an exemption decision is issued.
“These individuals,” Adly said, “are naturally ineligible to run for office because their convictions appear on their criminal record. Their political rights can only be restored by a final judicial ruling of rehabilitation.”
Political Outcry
Waleed El-Amary, spokesperson for the Civil Democratic Movement, described the exclusion of several opposition candidates from the parliamentary race as “a prearranged and entirely predictable scenario,” asserting that the authorities “have no desire for any form of oversight or for the existence of genuine political alternatives.”
Speaking to Zawia3, El-Amary said: “Since the beginning, the government has sought to minimize even the limited oversight role played by the opposition, particularly amid growing public discontent and dissatisfaction with the government and parliament’s performance during the previous term.” He added that the authorities’ refusal to amend the electoral law or the districting system to create fairer competition “reflects a clear intent to exclude dissenting voices from the entire political landscape.”
He continued: “Even when the Civil Movement parties decided to contest individual seats despite the difficulties, they were not allowed to participate — not even symbolically. The issue was never about winning seats but about having a presence, about standing up and competing. And even that, the authorities would not tolerate.”
El-Amary concluded by saying that what is happening “clearly shows that the authorities want neither oversight nor political alternatives, not even opposition figures who might one day emerge as potential competitors.”
For her part, Ilham Eidaroos — deputy founder of the Bread and Freedom Party (under formation) — expressed deep concern over the wave of exclusions that has targeted several opposition candidates, including Haitham El-Hariri in Alexandria and Mohamed Abdel-Halim in Mansoura. She stressed that “what is happening constitutes a direct violation of the right to political participation and exposes the non-neutral use of state institutions.”
Eidaroos told Zawia3 that the case of Mohamed Abdel-Halim — excluded on the grounds of a “positive drug test,” which was later refuted by an official analysis from the Ministry of Health’s laboratories — “raises serious concerns about the use of state apparatus in electoral disputes.” She added that “even more alarming is the vague and elastic interpretation now applied to the concept of exemption from military service.”
She explained that cases of “security-based” exemptions from military service are not new; they have appeared before in employment and other contexts, where “for years, young people with political activism or oppositional views have been issued so-called ‘security exemption’ certificates without their consent.” These certificates, she said, “have sometimes harmed their employment opportunities unofficially, but can never be used as grounds to strip them of their constitutional right to run or to vote.”
She added: “If the military institution itself decided to exempt me from service, that does not mean I failed in my duty as a citizen. How can someone be punished because the state itself decided not to conscript them?”
Eidaroos warned that maintaining these interpretations will lead to the systematic exclusion of democratic and opposition-oriented candidates in the future. “We are facing a legally absurd and unprecedented standard,” she said. “The law is clear: anyone who has performed military service or been legally exempted retains their full political rights. What matters is that they are not draft evaders. But to disqualify someone because the military chose to exempt them is unacceptable in both form and substance.”
In the same context, the Egyptian Social Democratic Party expressed its “rejection and deep concern” over the National Election Authority’s decisions to exclude several candidates, including Haitham El-Hariri (Moharram Bek district).
In its statement, the party argued that these decisions “have no basis in any legal provisions within the Law on the Exercise of Political Rights or the House of Representatives Law,” and that the National Election Authority did not cite such provisions in its rulings. The party emphasized that there are no precedents of this kind in Egypt’s electoral history. “It is well known,” the statement added, “that many candidates — including both opposition figures and members of pro-government parties — have obtained security-based exemptions from military service, run in elections, and served in parliament without such exemptions ever being treated as a legal or electoral impediment. As for reserve status, it has never before been a reason for disqualification.”
According to both political and legal sources interviewed for this report, the 2025 parliamentary elections are witnessing a systematic exclusion of opposition candidates — a reality that underscores the depth of Egypt’s democratic crisis. It reveals how broad legal interpretations are being used as tools to restrict political participation and silence critical voices, placing the entire electoral process before a fundamental test of its credibility and pluralism.
