“How many fifteen years does a person live? A car, after all, is a machine that wears out and breaks down over time. I would have accepted extending the period to seven or eight years, but fifteen years is far too long,” said Hossam Rizk Mohamed, who holds a bachelor’s degree in Islamic Theology and Preaching from Monufia Governorate, in his interview with Zawia3 about his reasons for rejecting some of the proposed amendments to Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly the decision to extend the eligibility period for obtaining an adapted vehicle from five to fifteen years.
Hossam, who has been visually impaired since birth, said the law “no longer guarantees my rights; instead, it adds to my burdens.” He explained, “I am not against the law or any amendments to it, but I only demand my legitimate right—not as a favor. It is unfair to be punished for violations committed by others.”
The proposed amendments to Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved by the Cabinet last August, have sparked widespread debate among beneficiaries and human rights organizations. Many believe the proposed changes could undermine hard-won achievements gained over the past years. While the government insists the aim is to ensure that benefits reach their rightful recipients after detecting cases of fraud and manipulation, many persons with disabilities argue that some provisions impose additional burdens and revive a paternalistic approach instead of promoting inclusion and empowerment.
The controversy extends beyond the most criticized amendment—raising the period of eligibility for an adapted car from five to fifteen years—to deeper issues, including the definition of disability itself, the use of legal terminology with negative psychological connotations, and the tightening of penalties for violators. Amid these divisions, one crucial question emerges: Do these amendments aim to strengthen rights and regulate the system, or do they threaten to roll back long-awaited gains?
What Makes the Amendments Controversial?
During its weekly meeting in mid-August, the Egyptian Cabinet approved a draft decision to amend certain provisions of Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, introducing changes to four key articles. These include an updated definition of persons with disabilities, new criteria for obtaining a tax- and customs-exempt vehicle or personal mobility device, and harsher penalties for offenses involving forgery or misuse of Integrated Services Cards.
The draft triggered a wave of discontent among many individuals with disabilities, who argue that the new proposals could exacerbate their living and bureaucratic hardships, especially given their existing difficulties in securing decent employment or accessing social protection programs. In contrast, Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly affirmed in an official statement that the amendments seek to ensure that the benefits and exemptions related to adapted vehicles reach their rightful recipients, adding that the decision followed documented cases of fraud and manipulation involving service cards in recent years.
This is not the first time the government has amended the law’s executive regulations. Just two years after its enactment, the Prime Minister issued a decree in March 2020 amending parts of the executive bylaw, which was published in the Official Gazette on March 31, 2020. These previous amendments covered procedures for obtaining the Disability Identification and Integrated Services Card, the customs exemption rules for vehicles designated for persons with disabilities, and the organization of the Disability Support Fund.
Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities represents a landmark in the legislative history of disability rights in Egypt, as it emerged in response to long-standing social and rights-based demands to empower and integrate this community into all aspects of public life. The law was drafted in accordance with the Egyptian Constitution and the country’s international obligations, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Egypt signed on April 4, 2007, and ratified on April 10, 2008.
Furthermore, Article 81 of the amended 2019 Egyptian Constitution mandates that the state guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities and short-statured individuals—including healthcare, economic, social, cultural, and educational rights—while also providing employment opportunities and allocating a quota of jobs for them.
One Car Every 15 Years Instead of Five
One of the most controversial amendments concerns Clause 4 of Paragraph 31, which now states:
“Cars and personal mobility vehicles designed for use by persons with disabilities shall be exempt from customs duties and value-added tax, for one vehicle or means of transport every fifteen years instead of every five years, provided that the importer is a person with a disability—regardless of the type of disability—and that the vehicle is used for personal purposes, whether driven by the person themselves, their insured personal driver, a first-degree relative, or by a guardian or custodian in the case of minors or those unable to drive.”
The amendments also stipulate that beneficiaries of the exemption must not be recipients of social-security benefits, and that the cost of the car must be paid, in full or in part, from the personal account of the person with a disability or one of their first-degree relatives. The article further prohibits selling, transferring, or using the car for purposes other than those intended within five years from the date of customs clearance. In the event of the beneficiary’s death during that period, the heirs may dispose of the vehicle only after paying half of the value of the customs duties and value-added tax.
The amendments also emphasize that any breach of these conditions will result in the full payment of customs and value-added taxes, in addition to the applicable legal penalties. The technical details regarding the degree of disability qualifying for exemption, the criteria for granting privileges, and the specifications and identifying marks of the vehicles will be defined in the executive regulations, to be issued in coordination with the relevant authorities.
Article 81 of the 2019 amended Egyptian Constitution stipulates that:
“The State is committed to guaranteeing the rights of persons with disabilities and short-statured persons in health, economy, society, culture, recreation, sports, and education, and to providing employment opportunities for them, with a designated percentage of jobs allocated to them.”
Hossam Rizk, one of the beneficiaries of the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, believes that extending the eligibility period for a vehicle from five to fifteen years is “an unrealistic burden,” emphasizing that cars naturally deteriorate and break down, making such an extension financially exhausting for people with disabilities.
He also criticized the 1,200 cc engine capacity requirement, which was introduced in the executive-bylaw amendments, describing it as “an additional constraint that strains beneficiaries.” He explained: “I searched for a long time for a car with these specifications—it was extremely exhausting. This restriction deprives us of broader options such as 1,600 cc cars, even when we are willing to pay the customs difference.”
Hossam further pointed out that the requirement that the car’s manufacturing date not exceed three years doubles the financial burden: “This condition effectively forces me to buy a brand-new 1,200 cc car to ensure it lasts fifteen years, which is an unaffordable cost for me.”
He also expressed frustration at being deprived of the “Takaful and Karama” pension after obtaining the car, explaining: “My visual impairment has led to my rejection from many jobs I applied for. The state should be providing employment opportunities and increasing the constitutionally mandated 5% employment quota instead of depriving me of a pension that serves as a necessary means of living.”
Hossam questioned the rationale behind requiring heirs to pay half of the customs tax in the event of a beneficiary’s death, asking: “Does this make any sense?”—a reflection of what he perceives as unnecessary measures that add to the burden on persons with disabilities and their families.
In the same context, former MP Faiza Mahmoud expressed her discontent with the procedures related to the Disability Identification Card, noting that some beneficiaries had been excluded from services on the grounds that their disability was “not proven.” She said, “I do not understand the criteria these committees use to determine disability—this is very strange.”
In her statement to Zawia3, Mahmoud explained that the Prime Minister’s decision limiting vehicle engine capacity for persons with disabilities to 1,200 cc has provoked widespread controversy among beneficiaries, asserting that “setting an engine limit in this manner imposes illogical restrictions on persons with disabilities.”
She added: “People with disabilities need cars equipped with special features—automatic transmission and air conditioning in particular—especially for those with partial paralysis or disabilities where exposure to heat is dangerous. Forcing them to buy small cars makes it harder to use a wheelchair inside the vehicle and increases their overall burden.”
For its part, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) stated in an official release that while it recognizes the importance of setting clear and specific criteria for those eligible for customs and VAT exemptions on cars and personal mobility devices for persons with disabilities, the proposed amendment fails to strike a balance between facilitating access for persons with disabilities and their families—which is the main purpose of the article—and safeguarding the state’s financial rights.
According to the Initiative, the proposed change to extend the exemption period to fifteen years instead of five makes it extremely difficult for persons with disabilities to replace worn-out vehicles before the legal term expires. The Initiative argued that the amendment should instead link the replacement eligibility to the car’s depreciation rate, whether total or partial. Moreover, the proposed amendment introduces additional conditions that exclude certain categories of persons with disabilities from these benefits, including the exclusion of social-security beneficiaries.
“Deformity” Instead of “Impairment” or “Deficiency”
Official estimates issued by Egypt’s Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) in 2022 indicate that 11% of the population experience some form of disability, ranging from mild to severe.
According to the latest amendments, the first paragraph of Article 2 now defines a person with a disability as:
“Any person who suffers from a long-term deformity—physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory—that may, when interacting with various barriers, hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”
This wording sparked widespread controversy among persons with disabilities and human rights organizations, after the term “deformity (ʿāha)” was substituted for the previously used expressions “impairment” or “partial or total deficiency.”
The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) stated in its release that the proposed amendment redefining persons with disabilities and replacing the former terminology with “deformity” would reduce the number of people eligible for state-provided services and benefits in areas such as employment, education, healthcare, and public transportation discounts. The Initiative explained that replacing the phrase “every person with a partial or total impairment or deficiency” with “every person who suffers from a long-term deformity” carries a negative psychological impact on individuals and their families. It also reinforces discriminatory attitudes toward persons with disabilities, opening the door for executive authorities to treat them as a “burden” on the state and society, rather than recognizing them as full citizens entitled to rights and responsibilities.
In this context, former Member of Parliament Faiza Mahmoud, who participated in passing the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities during the previous parliamentary term, stated that the drafting of some recent amendments to the law “appears to have been carried out by administrative staff rather than technical experts,” stressing the significant difference between bureaucratic and technical legislative drafting concerning disability-related laws.
Speaking to Zawia3, Mahmoud said: “Those who review or amend this law must be well-versed in the 2008 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Egypt signed, especially regarding the definition of disability. This definition is internationally standardized and cannot be altered, added to, or deleted from.”
She explained further: “Manipulating terminology in legal texts is not merely a linguistic difference—it directly affects the lives and rights of persons with disabilities. Certain terms can empty rights of their meaning, as is the case when using the word ‘deformity’ instead of ‘partial or total impairment.’ The former suggests a permanent bodily defect, reinforcing stigma and stereotyping, whereas the latter provides an objective medical description. This difference in phrasing institutionalizes discrimination and negatively shapes how society and official institutions perceive persons with disabilities.”
Mahmoud continued: “It has been less than six years since the law was enacted as the first comprehensive legislation for persons with disabilities in Egypt, so it is unjustified to amend it now. There are laws dating back to the 1970s that have never been reviewed—so why the sudden focus on changing this one? The current law contains no constitutional flaws, yet some of the proposed amendments could create a ‘constitutional gap’ rather than enhance rights.”
Zawia3 contacted Dr. Iman Karim to inquire whether the National Council for Persons with Disabilities had discussed the draft amendments and its position on the controversial provisions, but no response was received as of the time of publishing this report.
The National Council for Persons with Disabilities had earlier issued a statement on August 17, clarifying that the proposed amendments to Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are still a draft, and will not take effect until all constitutional and legislative procedures are completed. The Council added that reviewing such amendments falls within its powers as defined by Law No. 11 of 2019, which established the Council and mandates it to provide opinions on laws and policies related to the rights of persons with disabilities.
Regarding the recent debate over the use of the term “deformity” in discussions surrounding the law—especially since the same word appears in the Arabic translation of the UN Convention—the Council clarified that the term appears only as a literal translation of a phrase used in the Convention, but it is not the term adopted in national legislation. The statement confirmed that Law No. 10 of 2018 uses the term “impairment” (quṣūr), which is the correct legal and rights-based term, and affirmed that the Council will work to preserve this terminology and prevent its replacement in any future amendments to national laws.
The National Council for Persons with Disabilities was established by Presidential Decree No. 11 of 2019, replacing the National Council for Disability Affairs, which had been created by Prime Ministerial Decree No. 410 of 2012.
Harsher Penalties for Violators
The proposed amendments to the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities introduce tougher penalties related to the Integrated Services Cards and rehabilitation certificates. Under the new changes to Article 49, the penalty for forging a disability card or rehabilitation certificate may reach ten years in prison, along with a fine of up to 100,000 pounds ($2,083). The amendments also stipulate that those who provide false information to the competent authority will face the same penalty as those who commit forgery.
Similarly, Article 51 has been amended to increase both the prison sentence and the fine, stipulating imprisonment for no less than six months and a fine of up to 200,000 pounds ($4,166) for crimes related to obtaining services or benefits unlawfully, impersonating a person with a disability, or acquiring a disability card or certificate without legitimate grounds.
The National Council for Persons with Disabilities welcomed the proposed tightening of penalties, describing it as a necessary deterrent against those who attempt to illegally obtain privileges designated for persons with disabilities. The Council viewed the step as a means of safeguarding rights and ensuring that services reach their rightful recipients.
However, human rights lawyer Ali Ayyoub argued that the penalties stipulated in the proposed amendments are “excessively severe—beyond even those for forgery under the general criminal code.” Speaking to Zawia3, he said that equating those who provide incorrect information with those who commit outright forgery “violates the presumption of innocence and constitutes a clear injustice.”
Ayyoub explained that providing false information is a subjective matter that should be assessed by the trial judge based on the documents and circumstances of each case, adding that it would have been sufficient to apply the existing penalties for forgery in official or private documents as defined in Egypt’s Penal Code.
In the same context, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) renewed its criticism of the prevailing legislative approach in recent years, which it said has relied excessively on expanding and intensifying custodial penalties as the primary tool for addressing offenses and violations—without any real evaluation of their effectiveness in achieving deterrence or broader social goals.
While the Egyptian government maintains that the amendments to Law No. 10 of 2018 aim to restructure the benefits system and ensure that privileges reach those truly eligible, many persons with disabilities and civil society organizations argue that some of the proposed provisions add new burdens and restrict access to existing rights. This tension raises a fundamental question:
Will the amendments preserve the hard-won gains of the original law, or do they mark a step backward—reviving the very patterns of marginalization the law sought to overcome?
Egypt’s Disability Law Amendments Spark Outrage: “They Punish Us for Our Disability”
Shimaa Hamdy
“How many fifteen years does a person live? A car, after all, is a machine that wears out and breaks down over time. I would have accepted extending the period to seven or eight years, but fifteen years is far too long,” said Hossam Rizk Mohamed, who holds a bachelor’s degree in Islamic Theology and Preaching from Monufia Governorate, in his interview with Zawia3 about his reasons for rejecting some of the proposed amendments to Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly the decision to extend the eligibility period for obtaining an adapted vehicle from five to fifteen years.
Hossam, who has been visually impaired since birth, said the law “no longer guarantees my rights; instead, it adds to my burdens.” He explained, “I am not against the law or any amendments to it, but I only demand my legitimate right—not as a favor. It is unfair to be punished for violations committed by others.”
The proposed amendments to Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved by the Cabinet last August, have sparked widespread debate among beneficiaries and human rights organizations. Many believe the proposed changes could undermine hard-won achievements gained over the past years. While the government insists the aim is to ensure that benefits reach their rightful recipients after detecting cases of fraud and manipulation, many persons with disabilities argue that some provisions impose additional burdens and revive a paternalistic approach instead of promoting inclusion and empowerment.
The controversy extends beyond the most criticized amendment—raising the period of eligibility for an adapted car from five to fifteen years—to deeper issues, including the definition of disability itself, the use of legal terminology with negative psychological connotations, and the tightening of penalties for violators. Amid these divisions, one crucial question emerges: Do these amendments aim to strengthen rights and regulate the system, or do they threaten to roll back long-awaited gains?
What Makes the Amendments Controversial?
During its weekly meeting in mid-August, the Egyptian Cabinet approved a draft decision to amend certain provisions of Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, introducing changes to four key articles. These include an updated definition of persons with disabilities, new criteria for obtaining a tax- and customs-exempt vehicle or personal mobility device, and harsher penalties for offenses involving forgery or misuse of Integrated Services Cards.
The draft triggered a wave of discontent among many individuals with disabilities, who argue that the new proposals could exacerbate their living and bureaucratic hardships, especially given their existing difficulties in securing decent employment or accessing social protection programs. In contrast, Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly affirmed in an official statement that the amendments seek to ensure that the benefits and exemptions related to adapted vehicles reach their rightful recipients, adding that the decision followed documented cases of fraud and manipulation involving service cards in recent years.
This is not the first time the government has amended the law’s executive regulations. Just two years after its enactment, the Prime Minister issued a decree in March 2020 amending parts of the executive bylaw, which was published in the Official Gazette on March 31, 2020. These previous amendments covered procedures for obtaining the Disability Identification and Integrated Services Card, the customs exemption rules for vehicles designated for persons with disabilities, and the organization of the Disability Support Fund.
Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities represents a landmark in the legislative history of disability rights in Egypt, as it emerged in response to long-standing social and rights-based demands to empower and integrate this community into all aspects of public life. The law was drafted in accordance with the Egyptian Constitution and the country’s international obligations, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Egypt signed on April 4, 2007, and ratified on April 10, 2008.
Furthermore, Article 81 of the amended 2019 Egyptian Constitution mandates that the state guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities and short-statured individuals—including healthcare, economic, social, cultural, and educational rights—while also providing employment opportunities and allocating a quota of jobs for them.
One Car Every 15 Years Instead of Five
One of the most controversial amendments concerns Clause 4 of Paragraph 31, which now states:
“Cars and personal mobility vehicles designed for use by persons with disabilities shall be exempt from customs duties and value-added tax, for one vehicle or means of transport every fifteen years instead of every five years, provided that the importer is a person with a disability—regardless of the type of disability—and that the vehicle is used for personal purposes, whether driven by the person themselves, their insured personal driver, a first-degree relative, or by a guardian or custodian in the case of minors or those unable to drive.”
The amendments also stipulate that beneficiaries of the exemption must not be recipients of social-security benefits, and that the cost of the car must be paid, in full or in part, from the personal account of the person with a disability or one of their first-degree relatives. The article further prohibits selling, transferring, or using the car for purposes other than those intended within five years from the date of customs clearance. In the event of the beneficiary’s death during that period, the heirs may dispose of the vehicle only after paying half of the value of the customs duties and value-added tax.
The amendments also emphasize that any breach of these conditions will result in the full payment of customs and value-added taxes, in addition to the applicable legal penalties. The technical details regarding the degree of disability qualifying for exemption, the criteria for granting privileges, and the specifications and identifying marks of the vehicles will be defined in the executive regulations, to be issued in coordination with the relevant authorities.
Article 81 of the 2019 amended Egyptian Constitution stipulates that:
“The State is committed to guaranteeing the rights of persons with disabilities and short-statured persons in health, economy, society, culture, recreation, sports, and education, and to providing employment opportunities for them, with a designated percentage of jobs allocated to them.”
Hossam Rizk, one of the beneficiaries of the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, believes that extending the eligibility period for a vehicle from five to fifteen years is “an unrealistic burden,” emphasizing that cars naturally deteriorate and break down, making such an extension financially exhausting for people with disabilities.
He also criticized the 1,200 cc engine capacity requirement, which was introduced in the executive-bylaw amendments, describing it as “an additional constraint that strains beneficiaries.” He explained: “I searched for a long time for a car with these specifications—it was extremely exhausting. This restriction deprives us of broader options such as 1,600 cc cars, even when we are willing to pay the customs difference.”
Hossam further pointed out that the requirement that the car’s manufacturing date not exceed three years doubles the financial burden: “This condition effectively forces me to buy a brand-new 1,200 cc car to ensure it lasts fifteen years, which is an unaffordable cost for me.”
He also expressed frustration at being deprived of the “Takaful and Karama” pension after obtaining the car, explaining: “My visual impairment has led to my rejection from many jobs I applied for. The state should be providing employment opportunities and increasing the constitutionally mandated 5% employment quota instead of depriving me of a pension that serves as a necessary means of living.”
Hossam questioned the rationale behind requiring heirs to pay half of the customs tax in the event of a beneficiary’s death, asking: “Does this make any sense?”—a reflection of what he perceives as unnecessary measures that add to the burden on persons with disabilities and their families.
In the same context, former MP Faiza Mahmoud expressed her discontent with the procedures related to the Disability Identification Card, noting that some beneficiaries had been excluded from services on the grounds that their disability was “not proven.” She said, “I do not understand the criteria these committees use to determine disability—this is very strange.”
In her statement to Zawia3, Mahmoud explained that the Prime Minister’s decision limiting vehicle engine capacity for persons with disabilities to 1,200 cc has provoked widespread controversy among beneficiaries, asserting that “setting an engine limit in this manner imposes illogical restrictions on persons with disabilities.”
She added: “People with disabilities need cars equipped with special features—automatic transmission and air conditioning in particular—especially for those with partial paralysis or disabilities where exposure to heat is dangerous. Forcing them to buy small cars makes it harder to use a wheelchair inside the vehicle and increases their overall burden.”
For its part, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) stated in an official release that while it recognizes the importance of setting clear and specific criteria for those eligible for customs and VAT exemptions on cars and personal mobility devices for persons with disabilities, the proposed amendment fails to strike a balance between facilitating access for persons with disabilities and their families—which is the main purpose of the article—and safeguarding the state’s financial rights.
According to the Initiative, the proposed change to extend the exemption period to fifteen years instead of five makes it extremely difficult for persons with disabilities to replace worn-out vehicles before the legal term expires. The Initiative argued that the amendment should instead link the replacement eligibility to the car’s depreciation rate, whether total or partial. Moreover, the proposed amendment introduces additional conditions that exclude certain categories of persons with disabilities from these benefits, including the exclusion of social-security beneficiaries.
“Deformity” Instead of “Impairment” or “Deficiency”
Official estimates issued by Egypt’s Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) in 2022 indicate that 11% of the population experience some form of disability, ranging from mild to severe.
According to the latest amendments, the first paragraph of Article 2 now defines a person with a disability as:
“Any person who suffers from a long-term deformity—physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory—that may, when interacting with various barriers, hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”
This wording sparked widespread controversy among persons with disabilities and human rights organizations, after the term “deformity (ʿāha)” was substituted for the previously used expressions “impairment” or “partial or total deficiency.”
The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) stated in its release that the proposed amendment redefining persons with disabilities and replacing the former terminology with “deformity” would reduce the number of people eligible for state-provided services and benefits in areas such as employment, education, healthcare, and public transportation discounts. The Initiative explained that replacing the phrase “every person with a partial or total impairment or deficiency” with “every person who suffers from a long-term deformity” carries a negative psychological impact on individuals and their families. It also reinforces discriminatory attitudes toward persons with disabilities, opening the door for executive authorities to treat them as a “burden” on the state and society, rather than recognizing them as full citizens entitled to rights and responsibilities.
In this context, former Member of Parliament Faiza Mahmoud, who participated in passing the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities during the previous parliamentary term, stated that the drafting of some recent amendments to the law “appears to have been carried out by administrative staff rather than technical experts,” stressing the significant difference between bureaucratic and technical legislative drafting concerning disability-related laws.
Speaking to Zawia3, Mahmoud said: “Those who review or amend this law must be well-versed in the 2008 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Egypt signed, especially regarding the definition of disability. This definition is internationally standardized and cannot be altered, added to, or deleted from.”
She explained further: “Manipulating terminology in legal texts is not merely a linguistic difference—it directly affects the lives and rights of persons with disabilities. Certain terms can empty rights of their meaning, as is the case when using the word ‘deformity’ instead of ‘partial or total impairment.’ The former suggests a permanent bodily defect, reinforcing stigma and stereotyping, whereas the latter provides an objective medical description. This difference in phrasing institutionalizes discrimination and negatively shapes how society and official institutions perceive persons with disabilities.”
Mahmoud continued: “It has been less than six years since the law was enacted as the first comprehensive legislation for persons with disabilities in Egypt, so it is unjustified to amend it now. There are laws dating back to the 1970s that have never been reviewed—so why the sudden focus on changing this one? The current law contains no constitutional flaws, yet some of the proposed amendments could create a ‘constitutional gap’ rather than enhance rights.”
Zawia3 contacted Dr. Iman Karim to inquire whether the National Council for Persons with Disabilities had discussed the draft amendments and its position on the controversial provisions, but no response was received as of the time of publishing this report.
The National Council for Persons with Disabilities had earlier issued a statement on August 17, clarifying that the proposed amendments to Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are still a draft, and will not take effect until all constitutional and legislative procedures are completed. The Council added that reviewing such amendments falls within its powers as defined by Law No. 11 of 2019, which established the Council and mandates it to provide opinions on laws and policies related to the rights of persons with disabilities.
Regarding the recent debate over the use of the term “deformity” in discussions surrounding the law—especially since the same word appears in the Arabic translation of the UN Convention—the Council clarified that the term appears only as a literal translation of a phrase used in the Convention, but it is not the term adopted in national legislation. The statement confirmed that Law No. 10 of 2018 uses the term “impairment” (quṣūr), which is the correct legal and rights-based term, and affirmed that the Council will work to preserve this terminology and prevent its replacement in any future amendments to national laws.
The National Council for Persons with Disabilities was established by Presidential Decree No. 11 of 2019, replacing the National Council for Disability Affairs, which had been created by Prime Ministerial Decree No. 410 of 2012.
Harsher Penalties for Violators
The proposed amendments to the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities introduce tougher penalties related to the Integrated Services Cards and rehabilitation certificates. Under the new changes to Article 49, the penalty for forging a disability card or rehabilitation certificate may reach ten years in prison, along with a fine of up to 100,000 pounds ($2,083). The amendments also stipulate that those who provide false information to the competent authority will face the same penalty as those who commit forgery.
Similarly, Article 51 has been amended to increase both the prison sentence and the fine, stipulating imprisonment for no less than six months and a fine of up to 200,000 pounds ($4,166) for crimes related to obtaining services or benefits unlawfully, impersonating a person with a disability, or acquiring a disability card or certificate without legitimate grounds.
The National Council for Persons with Disabilities welcomed the proposed tightening of penalties, describing it as a necessary deterrent against those who attempt to illegally obtain privileges designated for persons with disabilities. The Council viewed the step as a means of safeguarding rights and ensuring that services reach their rightful recipients.
However, human rights lawyer Ali Ayyoub argued that the penalties stipulated in the proposed amendments are “excessively severe—beyond even those for forgery under the general criminal code.” Speaking to Zawia3, he said that equating those who provide incorrect information with those who commit outright forgery “violates the presumption of innocence and constitutes a clear injustice.”
Ayyoub explained that providing false information is a subjective matter that should be assessed by the trial judge based on the documents and circumstances of each case, adding that it would have been sufficient to apply the existing penalties for forgery in official or private documents as defined in Egypt’s Penal Code.
In the same context, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) renewed its criticism of the prevailing legislative approach in recent years, which it said has relied excessively on expanding and intensifying custodial penalties as the primary tool for addressing offenses and violations—without any real evaluation of their effectiveness in achieving deterrence or broader social goals.
While the Egyptian government maintains that the amendments to Law No. 10 of 2018 aim to restructure the benefits system and ensure that privileges reach those truly eligible, many persons with disabilities and civil society organizations argue that some of the proposed provisions add new burdens and restrict access to existing rights. This tension raises a fundamental question:
Will the amendments preserve the hard-won gains of the original law, or do they mark a step backward—reviving the very patterns of marginalization the law sought to overcome?
Egypt Expropriates 87 Feddans in Sinai for Railway Project, Pushing Thousands Toward a Third Eviction
For a Railway Project Requested by Kamel El-Wazir: Expropriation of 87 Feddans in Sinai Puts Al-Maqata’a and Al-Kharafin Residents Facing a Third Eviction
Security Improved, Economy Strained: Egypt’s June 30 Demands, More Than a Decade Later
Thirteen years after the “Tamarod” (Rebel) campaign, signed by more than 22 million Egyptians, external debt has risen from $43 billion to $164 billion, and the pound has fallen from 7 to roughly 50 to the dollar — even as the security indicator has improved relatively amid continued restrictions on public freedoms.
Land for the Army, Prison Cells for Dissidents: 1,700 Challenges to the Old Rent Law
Detentions over opinion, 1,700 constitutional challenges to the rent law, deaths in the detention of Sudanese refugees
Lotus Village: When “Shore Protection” Becomes Beach Erosion
Owners of nearly 200 units at a North Coast resort filed reports and complaints with the Public Prosecution and the Cabinet over a stone-groyne project that allegedly violated technical specifications, after the beach lost approximately 21,600 cubic meters of sand and the sea advanced toward residential units, while the case remains before the courts without a final ruling.
Two Million Egyptians Have Been Drinking Sewage-Contaminated Water for a Decade. Officials Say They Know Nothing.
Since 2016, more than two million citizens in Khosous, Qalyubiya have complained of dark-colored, foul-smelling drinking water. A water expert warns that leaks in sewage networks are turning pumps into sewage pumps and threatening the spread of cholera, while officials deny receiving any complaints.
Ahmed Tantawi: Egypt’s Authority Does Not Fear the Opposition. It Fears the Alternative
Ahmed Tantawi recounts the details of the Hope Alliance of 2019 for the first time: how the idea was born, who obstructed it from within, and what happened the night his colleagues were arrested. A frank conversation about the failures of the Egyptian opposition, and about the question the Civil Democratic Movement has yet to answer.
Mass Boycott in Egypt: 21,000 Lawyers Reject Rising Judicial Fees
A Decade of IMF Loans: Can Egypt Break Free in 2026?
After Land, Wheat, and Fish: Egypt’s Future of Egypt Authority Takes Over 40,000 Subsidized Food Outlets