In the Egyptian constitutional system, no law becomes effective until it is passed by the House of Representatives and then presented to the President of the Republic. If the President approves and signs it, the law is published in the Official Gazette and comes into force. If the President objects, the law is sent back to Parliament for reconsideration.
This philosophy is based on the idea of balance between the legislative and executive powers: Parliament expresses popular will, while the President bears the responsibility of safeguarding public interest and national security. Presidential objections are not a legislative blockade; rather, they are a tool to ensure that laws are balanced, constitutionally compliant, and fairly enforceable.
At a particularly sensitive time for the country and the region, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi returned the Criminal Procedure Law to Parliament, accompanied by formal objections to certain provisions, especially those relating to public freedoms, guarantees of fair trial, and defendants’ rights. Before delving into this, I want to clarify my understanding—I am not a lawyer.
What is the Criminal Procedure Law?
The Criminal Procedure Law regulates how criminal justice is applied in Egypt. It does not define crimes or punishments (that’s the role of the Penal Code). Rather, it sets out:
-
How criminal proceedings start (complaints and investigations).
-
The powers of the Public Prosecution and police in arrests and investigations.
-
Rights of the accused during trial.
-
Defense guarantees.
-
Detention periods before trial.
-
How judgments are enforced.
In other words, it governs the path from the moment of accusation to the issuance of a verdict, balancing the state’s right to maintain security with the citizen’s right to a fair trial.
Why did the President return the law to Parliament?
From what I understand and what has been reported in discussions, the presidential objections focused on provisions related to:
-
Pretrial detention: Some amendments allow for extended or loosely defined detention periods. The President objected because this could infringe on citizens’ rights, especially since pretrial detention is supposed to be precautionary, not the rule.
-
Judicial guarantees: Some provisions granted wide powers to investigative authorities at the expense of judicial oversight. The objection aimed to protect the separation of powers and ensure real judicial review.
-
Defense rights and fair trial: Certain wording could limit the accused’s opportunity to defend themselves or appeal. The presidency stressed that a fair trial is a fundamental principle that cannot be compromised.
In summary, for the non-specialist reader: the Criminal Procedure Law is the “constitution of criminal justice,” and amending it matters because it is applied daily to thousands of cases and citizens. The President returned it to Parliament because he saw that some provisions could harm citizens’ rights or weaken guarantees of a fair trial.
Political Context:
Returning the law with clear objections regarding rights and freedoms is not merely a procedural step but a political signal at a very sensitive time. Domestically, while the situation is formally stable, there are multiple signs of discontent. Regionally, the Gaza and West Bank conflicts raise concerns about internal security repercussions. Simultaneously, local and international pressure is growing on Egypt to improve its human rights record. This intersection of domestic and international factors gives any legislative move meanings that go beyond the text of the law.
A superficial reading might frame this step as a traditional balance between security and freedoms. However, the presidential objection to provisions on pretrial detention and trial guarantees suggests that the state is beginning to consider the cost of continuing old policies on the country’s reputation, international standing, and perhaps even long-term internal stability. It’s as if the presidency is sending a dual message: national security without compromise, but also a state governed by law without overreach.
Is this a shift in state management philosophy?
-
First possibility: This is merely a political maneuver to absorb pressure, without a fundamental change in governance philosophy—continuing the old equation: stability versus restricting freedoms, with cosmetic legislative improvements.
-
Second possibility: The regime may have realized that internal legitimacy is not built solely on security control but on citizens’ trust in the justice system. In this case, the objection could represent a gradual transition from a state of “exceptional procedures” to one of “constitutional balances.”
-
Third possibility: This step could pave the way for temporarily reinstating a state of emergency due to regional circumstances, reinforcing that the governing philosophy still sees extraordinary measures as the first line of defense.
I have legitimate concerns and personal experience. It is notable that the presidency periodically expresses a desire to allow wider freedom of expression, and the President himself has stated this more than once.
However, as an observer and citizen, I do not see these inclinations reflected in reality regarding press and media freedom. Restrictions remain, and the margins are narrow. I say this despite enjoying personal freedom of expression, which many envy both inside and outside Egypt—but this remains an exception and does not reflect the general rule.
This time, however, the intervention addresses the law itself before it is enacted, affecting citizens’ rights in procedures that are difficult to reverse.
The future implications will appear during the parliamentary session in October, which will test the sincerity of this potential shift. Parliament is dominated by state institutions; if legislative amendments are substantial and protect citizens from executive overreach, it could indicate the beginning of a new philosophy: a state recognizing that national security is inseparable from the legal and rights-based security of its citizens. If security concerns prevail, the message will be that the state’s security-focused philosophy continues, with only formal improvements, despite the President’s stated intentions.
Thus, the scene is open to contradictory possibilities: either a re-declaration of a state of emergency or the emergence of legal reform opening a new path. What is certain is that Egypt faces a critical turning point, not only in the path of legislating the Criminal Procedure Law but in the philosophy of managing the relationship between freedom and security, and between citizens and the state.
Example: Pretrial Detention
Pretrial detention is a precautionary measure, not an exception; it does not override the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
It is issued as a precaution against potential harm to the accused (e.g., fear of retaliation in revenge cases) or specific case circumstances, such as influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or fleeing the country.
Pretrial detention is temporary: initially, the Public Prosecution can issue it for four days, then the accused is brought before the urgent matters judge, who may extend it for up to fifteen days for specific reasons. The total detention period should not exceed forty-five days, after which charges must be filed and the accused referred to the competent court—which unfortunately often does not happen in Egypt.
Does clear legislation prevent violations of defendants’ rights?
The answer is no. The problem is not the current procedures or their precautionary purposes; the problem lies in manipulation by law enforcement and investigative authorities using methods that appear legal but are actually coercive, punitive, and restrictive of rights and freedoms. Much of this originates politically due to the lack of independence of the justice system from security authorities and can escalate further.
