Cairo: 16 October 2018

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) expresses its deep concern over the escalation in prison sentences issued in opinion-related cases, and stresses that the rulings issued yesterday by the Court of Cassation into the “insulting the judiciary” case- upholding the imprisonment of lawyers, journalists, former parliamentarians, politicians and citizens over cases pertaining to the expression of their opinion- contradict the provisions of the Egyptian Constitution. This is because Article (71) of the Constitution states that “No custodial sanction shall be imposed for crimes committed by way of publication or the public nature thereof”, a meaning which has been interpreted to a clear legal provision; Article (29) of Law No. 180 Regulating the Press and Media that was ratified in late August 2018.

ANHRI notes that the recent prison sentences didn’t stop at the limit of punishing some people for expressing their opinion, rather, it went beyond to raise a serious question about the limits of the legal role played by some of the defendants who are punished. Some of them had voiced their opinion while they were members at the Egyptian parliament and under its dome, which grants them immunity towards the exercise of their role. Such a matter raises many questions about the limits of immunity given to parliamentarians while carrying out their regulatory role, not to mention their right as citizens to freely express their views.

And interestingly, while immunity stands as an obstacle to the accountability of some MPs for their practices outside the Parliament, a matter which civil society organizations always address demanding putting a limit to, we here find other MPs pay the price of expressing their opinion under the dome of Parliament.

Moreover, the rulings have been handed to 10 lawyers owing to their legal opinion at the heart of the exercise of their legal work, a matter that undermines the foundations of the profession of lawyer that is based on refuting rules and judgments and exposing flaws and violations of the law, and hence challenging them through different methods; especially that their comments over which they were tried focused mainly on the rulings issued in the case popularly known as “Trial of the Century”.

ANHRI also pointed out that the last verdict included a new journalist; Abdel Halim Qandil, editor-in-chief of the state-backed newspaper “Sout Al-Omma”. This is in addition to the prosecution of another journalist who lives outside the country (Ahmed Al-Sharkawy), for merely expressing their opinion in cases that are open for public debate or commenting on court orders that are not considered final rulings.

Drawing attention to the historical context through which the case has been tackled and how it was developed against some of those who made this approach, ANHRI asserts that what has happened bears a message to all; that there is a need to adhere to the general principles of human rights and the constitutional provisions because it is the best way to protect rights and freedoms in this society.

ANHRI renews its ongoing and constant demand for the necessity to ban imprisonment over cases related to publishing and freedom of expression, and for the swift implementation of the Constitution’s provisions on freedom of expression. It also calls for reviewing all anti-freedom penalties stipulated in the Penal Code’s articles regarding the expression of opinion, in light of Law No. 180 of 2018 on press and media regulation.