The draft Criminal Procedure Law has resurfaced following the Egyptian parliament’s recent approval of a provision permitting the surveillance of phones and social media platforms. This move has sparked widespread human rights concerns over potential privacy violations and stirred debates regarding its constitutional validity. In contrast, Parliament Speaker Hanafy Gebaly defended the measure, asserting it “does not expand the powers of law enforcement.”
On January 13, the Egyptian House of Representatives approved amendments to Article 79 of the draft Criminal Procedure Law, allowing public prosecutors, with a judge’s authorization, to order the seizure of letters, messages, telegrams, newspapers, printed materials, and parcels. The law also permits the monitoring of wired and wireless communications, social media accounts and their non-public content, emails, text, audio, or video messages on phones or devices, and any other technological means. It authorizes the seizure of media containing such data or the recording of conversations held in private spaces if it aids in uncovering the truth in felonies or misdemeanors punishable by more than three months in prison.
The law has caused concern among Egyptians, dominating social media discussions, with many expressing fears over potential privacy invasions or legal repercussions from private communications unrelated to criminal charges. Speaker Gebaly clarified that “communications surveillance is not a broad or arbitrary measure but conducted under judicial orders within strict legal frameworks.” He emphasized that such monitoring is limited to serious crimes—felonies or misdemeanors punishable by over three months’ imprisonment—and that these legal safeguards prevent random or unlawful surveillance.
Articles 79 and 116 of the draft law grant the Public Prosecution authority to monitor and record communications and eavesdrop on private meetings, provided there is a justified judicial warrant for 30 days, renewable for similar periods.
The proposed amendments specify the circumstances under which these measures can be applied. Article 79 applies to “any felony or misdemeanor punishable by more than three months in prison.” Article 116 allows for the use of these powers in uncovering the truth in investigations related to specific felonies under the Penal Code, such as crimes against state security, explosives, bribery, embezzlement, public fund misappropriation, treason, and other functions assigned to the Public Prosecution by law.
Don’t miss: New Criminal Procedure Law in Egypt: Justice or Restriction on Freedoms?
Unlimited Extensions
During discussions in early January, some parliamentarians opposed the unlimited extension of surveillance periods, suggesting limiting them to two 30-day periods. However, the parliament rejected these proposals. Freddy El-Bayadi, an MP and deputy head of the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, told Zawia3 that the current law violates Article 57 of the Egyptian Constitution, which guarantees the sanctity of private life and the confidentiality of correspondence and communications, only allowing surveillance under a justified judicial order for a limited period.
El-Bayadi explained that he proposed capping surveillance at a maximum of three periods (nine months) because the current text allows for indefinite extensions, putting citizens under perpetual suspicion. The proposal was rejected by majority MPs and the government. He argued, “It’s unreasonable to monitor someone indefinitely; surveillance should be time-bound and end if no crime is proven.”
Article 57 of the Constitution states: “Private life is inviolable and protected. Correspondence, telegrams, electronic communications, phone calls, and other means of communication are confidential, and their confiscation, inspection, or monitoring is prohibited except by a justified judicial order, for a specified period, and in cases specified by law.”
MP Maha Abdel Nasser from the Egyptian Social Democratic Party told Zawia3: “We submitted a request to limit surveillance to one or two defined periods, but the proposal was rejected.” Regarding the law overall, she explained, “Surveillance is conducted only by judicial order or prosecutor’s authorization when a person is formally charged in a case. An order from a magistrate judge is then issued to monitor communication platforms, such as phones or social media. This is not new, and as before, if someone is charged, their phone can be monitored. This will continue under the new procedure as part of the legal process to confirm or refute the charges.”
Don’t miss: Crisis in Egypt’s Judiciary: Calls for Financial Equality Intensify
Privacy Concerns
Malek Adly, director of the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights, told Zawia3 that the constitution and law protect the confidentiality and privacy of private communications. At the same time, social media has become a public issue affecting everyone, as these platforms are considered public spaces where standard laws apply to crimes like extortion or defamation. However, concerns arise over surveillance and spying on private communications, which should be conditioned on thorough investigations and fair law enforcement.
Adly highlighted the primary issue of potential law misuse, noting that surveillance could often target political opposition or critics of economic and governmental policies, not just criminals or those charged with crimes. He pointed out that this goes beyond public posts and publications, delving into private communications, thereby putting everyone at risk. Some legal texts are introduced under the pretext of combating major crimes but may be exploited to threaten public freedoms and individual privacy.
“We have no issue with legal texts if enacted to maintain public order, but our concern lies in their potential use against political opposition or dissenting voices,” he said. He emphasized the need to differentiate between criminal security, which targets serious crimes like cybercrime, and “political security,” aimed at controlling opposition and preventing criticism or protest, which constitutes a clear violation of freedoms and could expand measures against critics.
Adly stressed that the Criminal Procedure Law holds significant importance, often referred to in legal circles as the “Constitution of Criminal Justice.” Such a law should not be passed without genuine public dialogue, practical expertise, and consideration of objections. Failing to address these objections in a law that deals with individual freedoms and rights could result in inadequate societal protection.
“When drafting a law, the goal should be to assist authorities in effectively enforcing the law and enhancing their capabilities to keep pace with technological and scientific advancements in crime prevention. Moreover, loopholes exploited under previous laws should be addressed. Failing to do so, and leaving matters unchecked without proper oversight or enforcement mechanisms, presents a serious issue. For example, the old Criminal Procedure Law stipulated that any legal error would nullify the case—a provision absent from the current law, potentially disrupting justice enforcement.”
Don’t miss: Tarek Nour: From Allegations to Media Power
Presumed Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Yasser Saad, a lawyer specializing in economic and social rights, criticized the law for treating all Egyptians as “guilty until proven innocent.” Speaking to Zawia3, he said, “In the realm of rights and freedoms, there’s a crucial matter often overlooked in written laws but reflected in court rulings, particularly those from the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Constitutional Court. This involves general legal principles that shape legislation based on societal disputes and needs.”
Saad explained that Egyptian legislation relies not only on the constitution and international agreements but also on judicial precedent. For instance, monitoring or recording phone calls has specific regulations, such as targeting criminals or investigating certain cases like harassment calls, but not for general surveillance of citizens without reports or investigations.
“What’s happening now violates the presumption of innocence enshrined in the constitution, making Egyptians feel constantly under suspicion,” he said. The law permits surveillance and recording of phone calls only for suspects, but exceeding these limits poses significant legal and ethical problems. The Egyptian judiciary, represented by the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Constitutional Court, has previously annulled many illegal procedures, including evidence obtained from invalid recordings. If evidence is unlawful, the court nullifies it entirely, even if it contains confessions. Saad emphasized that this legal foundation aims to protect citizens’ rights and ensure procedural justice.
He warned that the new legislation grants security agencies broad powers to bypass these safeguards, taking Egypt back decades to periods marked by widespread human rights violations. This contradicts the legal reforms achieved after long struggles, such as those following President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s rule and Anwar Sadat’s reforms. He expressed hope that the constitution would be upheld.
Saad pointed out that the problem lies not only in law enforcement but also in the lack of equality, asserting that this legislation presumes Egyptian citizens guilty until proven innocent, contrary to the constitutional principle that protects citizens and ensures equal treatment before the law.
The Criminal Procedure Law has been the subject of intense debate for months. A human rights group concluded in mid-November 2024 that substantial amendments to the draft law proposed by the parliament’s legislative committee were necessary. Anticipating parliamentary approval of the law in principle, the group drafted alternative texts and proposals covering 184 out of at least 540 articles in the draft law. They submitted a comprehensive 50-page document that included a table comparing the proposed text from the legislative committee, the current Criminal Procedure Law (Law No. 150 of 1950), and the group’s suggested amendments.
The working group sent the proposed amendments to President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, Parliament Speaker Hanafy Gebaly, and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Political Communication Mahmoud Fawzy. These amendments will be presented to parliament members in the coming days, with hopes of consideration and discussion, according to lawyer Khaled Ali.
