The Egyptian government has unveiled a broad plan to activate new mechanisms aimed at combating what it describes as “rumours and fake news,” amid what it considers a significant surge in false information spreading across social media platforms and foreign media outlets.
The announcement was made during a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Dr. Mostafa Madbouly and attended by the Ministers of Interior, Communications, Justice, and Youth and Sports, in addition to Khaled Abdel Aziz, head of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation, Abdel Sadek El-Shorbagy, head of the National Press Authority, and Ahmed El-Meslemany, head of the National Media Authority.
The plan includes adopting artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to monitor content, analyze its substance, and explore harsher penalties against those accused of “harming society or damaging the national economy” through false reporting. Although official statements claimed openness to criticism and public debate around government policies, the Prime Minister stressed the need for deterrent action against those he considers to be “fabricating false incidents,” referring to what the state sees as organized attempts to “undermine confidence in the national economy” in recent months.
The meeting concluded with consensus on unifying the efforts of executive, media, and religious institutions under what the government called a “comprehensive national strategy to confront rumours.”
These decisions come at a time when human rights organizations are escalating their criticism of increasing prosecutions of dissenting voices. Several journalists and activists have been referred for investigation under charges of “spreading false news,” raising questions about the blurry line between countering disinformation and protecting freedom of expression in Egypt.
Observers who spoke to Zawia3 expressed concern that the new mechanism could negatively impact the human rights landscape and be used to target critics and journalists. They argued that the official discourse around “protecting society” might in practice lead to a more aggressive framework for restricting public space—especially with the expanding use of AI tools in automated surveillance and content tracking.
According to these sources, past applications of “fake news” laws have often resulted in sweeping actions, including the arrest of ordinary social media users simply for posting opinions or critical commentary about public institutions. This raises fears that the new initiative may serve more to tighten censorship than to promote transparency.
In a public statement, journalist Khaled El-Balshy, head of Egypt’s Journalists’ Syndicate, described the government’s focus on increasing financial penalties as a “backward and unconstitutional approach.” He emphasized that the constitutional priority should be to pass a long-delayed law on the freedom of information, which would guarantee journalists and citizens access to official data and compel public sources to disclose it—while also prohibiting custodial penalties in publication-related cases.
El-Balshy argued that access to accurate and timely information is the most effective weapon in countering and correcting false narratives. He warned that raising fines without ensuring access to correct information will not deter fake news but may instead lead to the closure of newspapers and the loss of professional sources of credible information.
A New Pretext for Further Restrictions
A number of international and regional human rights organizations estimate that the number of prisoners and detainees held on political grounds in Egypt—including activists, opposition figures, protesters, and social media users—stands at tens of thousands, amid the absence of transparent official data on detainee numbers and classifications. Specialized human rights reports indicate that hundreds of these detainees face charges related to “spreading false news” or “misuse of social media,” often alongside broader accusations of a security nature or alleged affiliation with entities designated as “terrorist.”
Observers note that charges such as “spreading false news” and “misuse of social media” have become among the most frequently invoked accusations in cases brought against journalists, activists, and politicians in recent years. Provisions of the Penal Code, the Anti-Terrorism Law, and the Cybercrime Law are often combined to form bundles of charges, making it difficult to accurately quantify the number of opinion-related cases. In light of successive legislative measures and tightening controls—including the Cybercrime Law (2018) and the expansion of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation’s powers to monitor content and block websites—rights advocates warn that expanding surveillance and punitive authorities may lead to an increase in detentions over peaceful expression, rather than curbing disinformation. This, they argue, deepens the gap between the official discourse on “regulating the information space” and the reality of expanding criminalization and restrictions on freedom of expression in both public and digital spheres.
Nadya Nashaat, a human rights lawyer, told Zawia3 that government statements about “pursuing rumor-mongers” are not new, but have been repeated over the past several years. She questioned the effectiveness of such decisions given that “the bulk of rumors is circulated from within the institutions themselves, whether through media outlets backed by sovereign bodies or via social media pages run by what are known as electronic committees,” as she put it, pointing to a pattern of “copy-and-paste” narratives circulating across these platforms.
The human rights lawyer added that such rumors are often used to divert public attention away from specific issues or decisions. She asked: “If the state is already pursuing citizens over the simplest forms of expression, why the need for an arsenal of new laws or talk of harsher penalties?” She noted that cybercrime legislation and the charge of “spreading false news” have come to be used broadly against critics, to the point that they have become a “ready-made accusation” in most opinion-related cases.
Nashaat argues that the concept of “spreading rumors” has been stripped of its original meaning. While addressing threats to national security should, in principle, follow clear legal mechanisms, what is happening—by her account—is that any complaint or criticism is treated as a rumor, leaving the state to act as “both adversary and judge at the same time.” She suggested that the primary objective appears to be “preventing any criticism in the coming period,” whether related to violations or legal breaches by certain bodies. She cited the case of broadcaster Kaswaa Elkhelaly, who announced that she had been subjected to harassment, while the Interior Ministry responded by denying the allegations and labeling them “rumors,” underscoring that official paperwork may record formalities that do not reflect the real reasons behind targeting.
Who Holds the Government Accountable for False News?
Ironically, as the Egyptian government prepares to activate mechanisms to confront what it calls “fake news” and to consider tougher penalties against those accused of spreading it, specialized fact-checking platforms such as Matsadda2sh have documented multiple reports showing that a number of officials—including ministers, members of parliament, and members of the Senate—have issued dozens of statements in recent months that were described as misleading at times and inaccurate at others.
The monitoring also included journalists, media outlets, broadcasters, and well-known political figures close to the government. However, statements issued by officials exceeded, in volume, those identified by the platform among journalists, politicians, and media figures over the past six months—particularly on political and economic issues. In total, the platform documented 138 statements and comments classified as either inaccurate or misleading during the specified period, based on the findings of just one fact-checking platform.
Between June 1, 2025 and mid-December 2025, the reports recorded 88 statements issued by political officials—including ministers, members of parliament, Senate members, and heads of government bodies. Of these, 60 statements were classified as inaccurate, while 28 were deemed both inaccurate and misleading.
The monitoring also identified news reports and statements made by media figures, journalists, and press institutions aligned with the Egyptian government that were found to be inaccurate. The number of inaccurate statements reached 17, while another 17 statements were classified as both inaccurate and misleading, bringing the total to 34 news items and comments.
In addition, 16 comments issued by politicians from pro-government parties were documented, 12 of which were found to be inaccurate, along with four misleading statements.
UNESCO classifies inaccurate information under three main categories: “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” based on the intent and purpose of the publisher. Information is considered harmful when it is disseminated with the aim of causing harm to individuals, institutions, or groups. It is classified as misinformation when it results from the erroneous processing of otherwise accurate information. Disinformation, by contrast, refers to content that is deliberately fabricated and knowingly spread with the intent to deceive.
Further Security Crackdowns?
The Egyptian government began significantly expanding the use of the charge of “spreading false news” in early 2018, particularly in the weeks leading up to the presidential elections. At that time, controlling the flow of information across traditional media and social platforms became a key instrument for reinforcing the state’s official narrative. This shift was embodied in a decision by the Public Prosecutor in February 2018, which tasked the Public Prosecution with tracking down lies allegedly spread by what he called the “forces of evil” through media and social networks—especially those that might “disturb public order” or “sow panic in society.” The directive also included hotlines for citizens to report suspected fake news.
A paper published by the legal and tech rights organization Masar (Foundation for Law and Digital Society), titled “The Historical and Legislative Evolution of Criminalizing False News Abroad,” notes a sharp increase in prosecutions of social media users and digital content creators in recent years, under a range of overlapping legal provisions. One of the most commonly invoked is Article 80(d) of the Penal Code, which criminalizes “broadcasting false news or rumors about the country’s internal affairs abroad.” Prosecuting authorities often interpret content posted online as equivalent to foreign dissemination, thus broadening the scope of criminalization.
The paper also notes that Egyptian law relies on a layered framework of legal provisions to prosecute alleged cases of false news, creating a broad and overlapping system of criminal liability. It explains that Article 80(d) of the Penal Code is used to criminalize what is described as the publication of false information abroad, while Article 102 bis addresses the dissemination of false news within the country. In parallel, Article 188 governs offenses committed through newspapers and printed media. Together, these provisions form a cumulative legal structure that allows authorities to pursue the same act of expression under multiple charges, depending on how the content is framed and the platform through which it is published, significantly expanding the scope of criminalization.
This legal framework continues to be applied amid ongoing crackdowns on journalists, politicians, and public figures. On Sunday, December 7, Egypt’s State Security Prosecution released journalist Ahmed Refaat, editor-in-chief of Egypttech, and Mondher El-Khallaly, chairman of the company that owns the site, on bail of 20,000 EGP ($414.11) each. They were charged with “spreading false news,” and El-Khallaly was also accused of “operating a website without a license,” according to statements by the head of Egypt’s Journalists’ Syndicate, Khaled El-Balshy.
Recently, a criminal court sentenced Abdel Khalek Farouk, a well-known economist, to five years in prison on October 4, 2025, after finding him guilty of publishing “false news” deemed—according to the prosecution and court—likely to “disturb public peace and harm national interests.”
On September 25, 2025, activist and poet Ahmed Douma was summoned by the State Security Prosecution in case no. 7071/2025 on charges of “spreading and broadcasting false news.” He was released later on bail of 50,000 EGP ($1,035.29). The investigation was reportedly linked to a series of opinion pieces and testimonies he had published detailing incidents of torture and abuse during his imprisonment, which lasted over a decade. This marks the fifth time Douma has faced prosecution for this same charge.
Similarly, prominent human rights lawyer Mahienour El-Massry was summoned for questioning by the State Security Prosecution over social media posts related to prison conditions and the situation in Gaza. She was also released on bail.
In another related case, the same prosecution office renewed the detention of researcher and journalist Ismail Alexandrani for 15 days in connection with case no. 6469/2025. Alexandrani was arrested on September 24, upon his return from Siwa Oasis, and transferred to Cairo for interrogation. He faces charges of “spreading false news,” “joining a terrorist organization,” and “using an online platform to promote terrorist ideas.” His legal defense maintains that the posts cited by the prosecution reflect personal opinions and contain no false information, and they deny that he has any affiliation with political parties or outlawed groups.
Access to Information Is the Solution
Eman Ouf, member of the Egyptian Journalists’ Syndicate board and head of its Freedoms Committee, told Zawia3 that the government’s current narrative about “pursuing rumor spreaders” deliberately sidesteps a far more essential question: why are such rumors spreading in the first place? According to her, the lack of accessible factual information and the systematic withholding of official data create a vacuum where disinformation can flourish—“no matter how intense the surveillance or prosecution efforts may be.”
Ouf added that the Syndicate has laid out what she described as a “clear prescription” to combat misinformation. At the core of this, she argued, is the long-overdue enactment of a Freedom of Information Law, which has been constitutionally mandated but never implemented. “When official information is blocked, citizens inevitably turn to unreliable alternative sources,” she said. “We cannot combat rumors while truth itself is deliberately concealed.”
The second pillar of this strategy, Ouf explained, is to ensure that professional journalists have the space and freedom to do their job—researching, investigating, and reporting. “Every time journalistic work is restricted, we see the rise of ill-equipped alternatives: so-called citizen journalists, bloggers, or anonymous social media pages—none of which have access to proper verification tools.”
According to Ouf, the ongoing freeze on hiring within state-owned media institutions, coupled with a lack of material and professional support, is weakening their capacity to evolve and adopt modern verification techniques. Meanwhile, young qualified journalists are being sidelined, “leaving the public sphere dominated by unprofessional narratives and inaccurate information.” She emphasized that many countries have successfully addressed the issue of disinformation not through surveillance, but through greater transparency and stronger journalism. She warned that Egypt’s new policy risks triggering a fresh wave of crackdowns on journalists—“especially since charges of spreading false news have already been increasingly used in recent years.”
Ouf also highlighted an even more alarming trend: punishing journalists even when they report true information. She cited the case of journalist Mohamed Taher, who faced legal persecution for publishing verified reports about major antiquities-related cases. “If a journalist is punished for telling the truth, how can we expect them to fulfill their role professionally?” she asked. Ouf expressed deep concern that recent directives may lead to a new escalation in security-led harassment of journalists, which could further restrict press freedom and undermine the ability of media workers to perform their duties.
Separately, Khaled El-Balshy, the head of the Journalists’ Syndicate, called on the General Conference Board of Trustees to develop a roadmap for reforming Egypt’s media landscape. This roadmap, he said, should build on the recommendations of the Syndicate’s Sixth General Conference and the outcomes of the president’s recent meeting with leaders of state-owned media institutions. That meeting had stressed the state’s responsibility to uphold freedom of expression and ensure media pluralism.
El-Balshy also reiterated that the Freedom of Information Law is “a foundational step toward promoting transparency and empowering citizens with access to official data.”
The National Dialogue: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency
The enactment of a Freedom of Information Law was one of the most prominent recommendations of Egypt’s National Dialogue. In a dedicated session—moderated by Diaa Rashwan and attended by lawyer Ahmed Ragheb alongside several politicians, journalists, and academics—participants unanimously agreed that such a law is not merely a tool for journalists, but a universal right for all citizens to access official data directly from its source. They emphasized that transparency enhances accountability and civic participation, while also serving as a key barrier against disinformation and rumors. Despite this consensus, the law’s fate remains unclear.
Ahmed Ragheb, a prominent human rights lawyer, told Zawia3 that the responsibility for the delay lies with the previous parliament, which “never considered the law a legislative priority.” He stressed that the draft Freedom of Information Law does not target journalists alone—though the press arguably stands to benefit the most from access to accurate data for public dissemination. The law, he added, is “primarily directed at society as a whole,” and has a clear economic dimension, as accurate official data holds considerable market and investment value.
Ragheb emphasized that freedom of information is a constitutional right, explicitly recognized by Egypt’s constitution. As such, it must be translated into legislation that guarantees access to information without compromising national security, privacy, or personal data protection. He clarified that information access does not equate to unrestricted disclosure, but should follow clear criteria related to security and privacy standards.
A policy paper titled “After More Than a Decade of Delays, Will the National Dialogue Settle the Fate of the Freedom of Information Law?” published by Egyptian Observatory, noted that Egypt’s legislative tendencies have, for decades, fallen short of supporting freedom of expression or the public’s right to know. The paper pointed out that although the law has often been viewed through the narrow lens of journalism, its actual impact extends across all sectors—from political participation to sustainable development.
The paper also highlighted a contradiction: while the state spends significant effort and resources on denying rumors related to government performance, hundreds of citizens have been referred to the public prosecution on charges of spreading “false news.” This raises a crucial question: How can citizens distinguish truth from rumor without genuine transparency and access to official data? In this context, the Freedom of Information Law emerges as a foundational tool for political stability and rebuilding public trust in state institutions.
The law’s importance becomes even more pronounced given the lack of transparency surrounding major national projects and investment agreements with large corporations. According to the paper, formal disclosure under a legal framework would allow the public to understand the goals of such deals, assess potential returns, weigh them against associated costs, and move away from relying on speculative opinions and unofficial leaks.
In the end, while the Egyptian government seeks to build public confidence in state institutions and the economy through laws targeting false information, the risk of these laws being misused against journalists and opposition voices remains high. By contrast, a comprehensive and constitutionally grounded Freedom of Information Law remains the most effective mechanism to counter disinformation and empower journalism to fulfill its watchdog role. Yet this law remains absent—without clear justification—despite expert consensus that transparency and official disclosure are the only viable paths to combating misinformation and fostering genuine trust between the state and its citizens.
Fake News Crackdown: AI Surveillance Targets Citizens While Officials Remain Immune
Shimaa Hamdy
The Egyptian government has unveiled a broad plan to activate new mechanisms aimed at combating what it describes as “rumours and fake news,” amid what it considers a significant surge in false information spreading across social media platforms and foreign media outlets.
The announcement was made during a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Dr. Mostafa Madbouly and attended by the Ministers of Interior, Communications, Justice, and Youth and Sports, in addition to Khaled Abdel Aziz, head of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation, Abdel Sadek El-Shorbagy, head of the National Press Authority, and Ahmed El-Meslemany, head of the National Media Authority.
The plan includes adopting artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to monitor content, analyze its substance, and explore harsher penalties against those accused of “harming society or damaging the national economy” through false reporting. Although official statements claimed openness to criticism and public debate around government policies, the Prime Minister stressed the need for deterrent action against those he considers to be “fabricating false incidents,” referring to what the state sees as organized attempts to “undermine confidence in the national economy” in recent months.
The meeting concluded with consensus on unifying the efforts of executive, media, and religious institutions under what the government called a “comprehensive national strategy to confront rumours.”
These decisions come at a time when human rights organizations are escalating their criticism of increasing prosecutions of dissenting voices. Several journalists and activists have been referred for investigation under charges of “spreading false news,” raising questions about the blurry line between countering disinformation and protecting freedom of expression in Egypt.
Observers who spoke to Zawia3 expressed concern that the new mechanism could negatively impact the human rights landscape and be used to target critics and journalists. They argued that the official discourse around “protecting society” might in practice lead to a more aggressive framework for restricting public space—especially with the expanding use of AI tools in automated surveillance and content tracking.
According to these sources, past applications of “fake news” laws have often resulted in sweeping actions, including the arrest of ordinary social media users simply for posting opinions or critical commentary about public institutions. This raises fears that the new initiative may serve more to tighten censorship than to promote transparency.
In a public statement, journalist Khaled El-Balshy, head of Egypt’s Journalists’ Syndicate, described the government’s focus on increasing financial penalties as a “backward and unconstitutional approach.” He emphasized that the constitutional priority should be to pass a long-delayed law on the freedom of information, which would guarantee journalists and citizens access to official data and compel public sources to disclose it—while also prohibiting custodial penalties in publication-related cases.
El-Balshy argued that access to accurate and timely information is the most effective weapon in countering and correcting false narratives. He warned that raising fines without ensuring access to correct information will not deter fake news but may instead lead to the closure of newspapers and the loss of professional sources of credible information.
A New Pretext for Further Restrictions
A number of international and regional human rights organizations estimate that the number of prisoners and detainees held on political grounds in Egypt—including activists, opposition figures, protesters, and social media users—stands at tens of thousands, amid the absence of transparent official data on detainee numbers and classifications. Specialized human rights reports indicate that hundreds of these detainees face charges related to “spreading false news” or “misuse of social media,” often alongside broader accusations of a security nature or alleged affiliation with entities designated as “terrorist.”
Nadya Nashaat, a human rights lawyer, told Zawia3 that government statements about “pursuing rumor-mongers” are not new, but have been repeated over the past several years. She questioned the effectiveness of such decisions given that “the bulk of rumors is circulated from within the institutions themselves, whether through media outlets backed by sovereign bodies or via social media pages run by what are known as electronic committees,” as she put it, pointing to a pattern of “copy-and-paste” narratives circulating across these platforms.
The human rights lawyer added that such rumors are often used to divert public attention away from specific issues or decisions. She asked: “If the state is already pursuing citizens over the simplest forms of expression, why the need for an arsenal of new laws or talk of harsher penalties?” She noted that cybercrime legislation and the charge of “spreading false news” have come to be used broadly against critics, to the point that they have become a “ready-made accusation” in most opinion-related cases.
Nashaat argues that the concept of “spreading rumors” has been stripped of its original meaning. While addressing threats to national security should, in principle, follow clear legal mechanisms, what is happening—by her account—is that any complaint or criticism is treated as a rumor, leaving the state to act as “both adversary and judge at the same time.” She suggested that the primary objective appears to be “preventing any criticism in the coming period,” whether related to violations or legal breaches by certain bodies. She cited the case of broadcaster Kaswaa Elkhelaly, who announced that she had been subjected to harassment, while the Interior Ministry responded by denying the allegations and labeling them “rumors,” underscoring that official paperwork may record formalities that do not reflect the real reasons behind targeting.
Who Holds the Government Accountable for False News?
Ironically, as the Egyptian government prepares to activate mechanisms to confront what it calls “fake news” and to consider tougher penalties against those accused of spreading it, specialized fact-checking platforms such as Matsadda2sh have documented multiple reports showing that a number of officials—including ministers, members of parliament, and members of the Senate—have issued dozens of statements in recent months that were described as misleading at times and inaccurate at others.
The monitoring also included journalists, media outlets, broadcasters, and well-known political figures close to the government. However, statements issued by officials exceeded, in volume, those identified by the platform among journalists, politicians, and media figures over the past six months—particularly on political and economic issues. In total, the platform documented 138 statements and comments classified as either inaccurate or misleading during the specified period, based on the findings of just one fact-checking platform.
Between June 1, 2025 and mid-December 2025, the reports recorded 88 statements issued by political officials—including ministers, members of parliament, Senate members, and heads of government bodies. Of these, 60 statements were classified as inaccurate, while 28 were deemed both inaccurate and misleading.
The monitoring also identified news reports and statements made by media figures, journalists, and press institutions aligned with the Egyptian government that were found to be inaccurate. The number of inaccurate statements reached 17, while another 17 statements were classified as both inaccurate and misleading, bringing the total to 34 news items and comments.
In addition, 16 comments issued by politicians from pro-government parties were documented, 12 of which were found to be inaccurate, along with four misleading statements.
UNESCO classifies inaccurate information under three main categories: “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” based on the intent and purpose of the publisher. Information is considered harmful when it is disseminated with the aim of causing harm to individuals, institutions, or groups. It is classified as misinformation when it results from the erroneous processing of otherwise accurate information. Disinformation, by contrast, refers to content that is deliberately fabricated and knowingly spread with the intent to deceive.
Further Security Crackdowns?
The Egyptian government began significantly expanding the use of the charge of “spreading false news” in early 2018, particularly in the weeks leading up to the presidential elections. At that time, controlling the flow of information across traditional media and social platforms became a key instrument for reinforcing the state’s official narrative. This shift was embodied in a decision by the Public Prosecutor in February 2018, which tasked the Public Prosecution with tracking down lies allegedly spread by what he called the “forces of evil” through media and social networks—especially those that might “disturb public order” or “sow panic in society.” The directive also included hotlines for citizens to report suspected fake news.
A paper published by the legal and tech rights organization Masar (Foundation for Law and Digital Society), titled “The Historical and Legislative Evolution of Criminalizing False News Abroad,” notes a sharp increase in prosecutions of social media users and digital content creators in recent years, under a range of overlapping legal provisions. One of the most commonly invoked is Article 80(d) of the Penal Code, which criminalizes “broadcasting false news or rumors about the country’s internal affairs abroad.” Prosecuting authorities often interpret content posted online as equivalent to foreign dissemination, thus broadening the scope of criminalization.
The paper also notes that Egyptian law relies on a layered framework of legal provisions to prosecute alleged cases of false news, creating a broad and overlapping system of criminal liability. It explains that Article 80(d) of the Penal Code is used to criminalize what is described as the publication of false information abroad, while Article 102 bis addresses the dissemination of false news within the country. In parallel, Article 188 governs offenses committed through newspapers and printed media. Together, these provisions form a cumulative legal structure that allows authorities to pursue the same act of expression under multiple charges, depending on how the content is framed and the platform through which it is published, significantly expanding the scope of criminalization.
This legal framework continues to be applied amid ongoing crackdowns on journalists, politicians, and public figures. On Sunday, December 7, Egypt’s State Security Prosecution released journalist Ahmed Refaat, editor-in-chief of Egypttech, and Mondher El-Khallaly, chairman of the company that owns the site, on bail of 20,000 EGP ($414.11) each. They were charged with “spreading false news,” and El-Khallaly was also accused of “operating a website without a license,” according to statements by the head of Egypt’s Journalists’ Syndicate, Khaled El-Balshy.
Recently, a criminal court sentenced Abdel Khalek Farouk, a well-known economist, to five years in prison on October 4, 2025, after finding him guilty of publishing “false news” deemed—according to the prosecution and court—likely to “disturb public peace and harm national interests.”
On September 25, 2025, activist and poet Ahmed Douma was summoned by the State Security Prosecution in case no. 7071/2025 on charges of “spreading and broadcasting false news.” He was released later on bail of 50,000 EGP ($1,035.29). The investigation was reportedly linked to a series of opinion pieces and testimonies he had published detailing incidents of torture and abuse during his imprisonment, which lasted over a decade. This marks the fifth time Douma has faced prosecution for this same charge.
Similarly, prominent human rights lawyer Mahienour El-Massry was summoned for questioning by the State Security Prosecution over social media posts related to prison conditions and the situation in Gaza. She was also released on bail.
In another related case, the same prosecution office renewed the detention of researcher and journalist Ismail Alexandrani for 15 days in connection with case no. 6469/2025. Alexandrani was arrested on September 24, upon his return from Siwa Oasis, and transferred to Cairo for interrogation. He faces charges of “spreading false news,” “joining a terrorist organization,” and “using an online platform to promote terrorist ideas.” His legal defense maintains that the posts cited by the prosecution reflect personal opinions and contain no false information, and they deny that he has any affiliation with political parties or outlawed groups.
Access to Information Is the Solution
Eman Ouf, member of the Egyptian Journalists’ Syndicate board and head of its Freedoms Committee, told Zawia3 that the government’s current narrative about “pursuing rumor spreaders” deliberately sidesteps a far more essential question: why are such rumors spreading in the first place? According to her, the lack of accessible factual information and the systematic withholding of official data create a vacuum where disinformation can flourish—“no matter how intense the surveillance or prosecution efforts may be.”
Ouf added that the Syndicate has laid out what she described as a “clear prescription” to combat misinformation. At the core of this, she argued, is the long-overdue enactment of a Freedom of Information Law, which has been constitutionally mandated but never implemented. “When official information is blocked, citizens inevitably turn to unreliable alternative sources,” she said. “We cannot combat rumors while truth itself is deliberately concealed.”
The second pillar of this strategy, Ouf explained, is to ensure that professional journalists have the space and freedom to do their job—researching, investigating, and reporting. “Every time journalistic work is restricted, we see the rise of ill-equipped alternatives: so-called citizen journalists, bloggers, or anonymous social media pages—none of which have access to proper verification tools.”
According to Ouf, the ongoing freeze on hiring within state-owned media institutions, coupled with a lack of material and professional support, is weakening their capacity to evolve and adopt modern verification techniques. Meanwhile, young qualified journalists are being sidelined, “leaving the public sphere dominated by unprofessional narratives and inaccurate information.” She emphasized that many countries have successfully addressed the issue of disinformation not through surveillance, but through greater transparency and stronger journalism. She warned that Egypt’s new policy risks triggering a fresh wave of crackdowns on journalists—“especially since charges of spreading false news have already been increasingly used in recent years.”
Ouf also highlighted an even more alarming trend: punishing journalists even when they report true information. She cited the case of journalist Mohamed Taher, who faced legal persecution for publishing verified reports about major antiquities-related cases. “If a journalist is punished for telling the truth, how can we expect them to fulfill their role professionally?” she asked. Ouf expressed deep concern that recent directives may lead to a new escalation in security-led harassment of journalists, which could further restrict press freedom and undermine the ability of media workers to perform their duties.
Separately, Khaled El-Balshy, the head of the Journalists’ Syndicate, called on the General Conference Board of Trustees to develop a roadmap for reforming Egypt’s media landscape. This roadmap, he said, should build on the recommendations of the Syndicate’s Sixth General Conference and the outcomes of the president’s recent meeting with leaders of state-owned media institutions. That meeting had stressed the state’s responsibility to uphold freedom of expression and ensure media pluralism.
El-Balshy also reiterated that the Freedom of Information Law is “a foundational step toward promoting transparency and empowering citizens with access to official data.”
The National Dialogue: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency
The enactment of a Freedom of Information Law was one of the most prominent recommendations of Egypt’s National Dialogue. In a dedicated session—moderated by Diaa Rashwan and attended by lawyer Ahmed Ragheb alongside several politicians, journalists, and academics—participants unanimously agreed that such a law is not merely a tool for journalists, but a universal right for all citizens to access official data directly from its source. They emphasized that transparency enhances accountability and civic participation, while also serving as a key barrier against disinformation and rumors. Despite this consensus, the law’s fate remains unclear.
Ahmed Ragheb, a prominent human rights lawyer, told Zawia3 that the responsibility for the delay lies with the previous parliament, which “never considered the law a legislative priority.” He stressed that the draft Freedom of Information Law does not target journalists alone—though the press arguably stands to benefit the most from access to accurate data for public dissemination. The law, he added, is “primarily directed at society as a whole,” and has a clear economic dimension, as accurate official data holds considerable market and investment value.
Ragheb emphasized that freedom of information is a constitutional right, explicitly recognized by Egypt’s constitution. As such, it must be translated into legislation that guarantees access to information without compromising national security, privacy, or personal data protection. He clarified that information access does not equate to unrestricted disclosure, but should follow clear criteria related to security and privacy standards.
A policy paper titled “After More Than a Decade of Delays, Will the National Dialogue Settle the Fate of the Freedom of Information Law?” published by Egyptian Observatory, noted that Egypt’s legislative tendencies have, for decades, fallen short of supporting freedom of expression or the public’s right to know. The paper pointed out that although the law has often been viewed through the narrow lens of journalism, its actual impact extends across all sectors—from political participation to sustainable development.
The paper also highlighted a contradiction: while the state spends significant effort and resources on denying rumors related to government performance, hundreds of citizens have been referred to the public prosecution on charges of spreading “false news.” This raises a crucial question: How can citizens distinguish truth from rumor without genuine transparency and access to official data? In this context, the Freedom of Information Law emerges as a foundational tool for political stability and rebuilding public trust in state institutions.
The law’s importance becomes even more pronounced given the lack of transparency surrounding major national projects and investment agreements with large corporations. According to the paper, formal disclosure under a legal framework would allow the public to understand the goals of such deals, assess potential returns, weigh them against associated costs, and move away from relying on speculative opinions and unofficial leaks.
In the end, while the Egyptian government seeks to build public confidence in state institutions and the economy through laws targeting false information, the risk of these laws being misused against journalists and opposition voices remains high. By contrast, a comprehensive and constitutionally grounded Freedom of Information Law remains the most effective mechanism to counter disinformation and empower journalism to fulfill its watchdog role. Yet this law remains absent—without clear justification—despite expert consensus that transparency and official disclosure are the only viable paths to combating misinformation and fostering genuine trust between the state and its citizens.
Marital Blackmail in Egypt: How Husbands Exploit the Law to Abuse Women
Marital blackmail is spreading in Egypt as husbands exploit private images, weak laws, and social stigma to threaten, silence, and extort women after separation.
Unemployment Figures in Egypt Decline, but Poverty Rises
Egypt’s unemployment rate has fallen to historic lows, but poverty remains widespread as low wages, informal work, and weak job protection continue to shape the labor market.
Fake News Crackdown: AI Surveillance Targets Citizens While Officials Remain Immune
While Egypt cracks down on ‘fake news,’ 138 misleading statements by officials go unpunished—amid calls to enact a long-delayed freedom of information law.
Chaos in Egypt’s Real Estate Market: Companies Sell Units on Land Not Registered in Their Name
Thousands of property owners have yet to receive their units despite paying the full price, while projects were sold before construction without oversight, amid the absence of a body regulating Egypt’s real estate market.
No Meeting with Netanyahu: Egypt Pushes Back Amid Rising Border Tensions
As Gaza tensions rise, Egypt refuses to meet Netanyahu and warns against Israeli violations of the ceasefire. President Sisi’s expected Washington visit could be pivotal in pressuring the U.S. to enforce the peace agreement and protect Cairo’s national security interests
Internal WhatsApp Messages Reveal Election Authority’s Role in 2025 Vote Chaos
Zawia3 obtained internal WhatsApp messages from Administrative Prosecution counselors in a Giza general committee showing instructions attributed to the National Election Authority blocking access to vote counting without a specific power of attorney and banning any recording or release of results, even as the Authority later cited the failure to deliver results as one of the violations behind the annulment of elections in 19 districts.
Development Bulldozers Storm Al-Reisa Neighborhood in Al-Arish
Egypt’s Parliamentary Battleground: National Security Candidates vs. Intelligence-Backed Candidates
Egypt’s Ministry of Sports Invents a New Concept: Sports Naturalization as Human Trafficking