In August, the Egyptian government unveiled a draft law to reform its criminal procedures code, a move it touts as a step toward improving the rule of law. Yet, this legislative proposal is little more than a performative gesture to placate international critics while actually further entrenching the government’s repression through the legal system. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Egyptian regime’s ongoing campaign against imprisoned Egyptian writer and pro-democracy activist Alaa Abd El-Fattah, whose ten-year legal and political struggle serves as a testament to a government that substitutes the rule of law for an authoritarian system of rule by law.

For over a decade, Alaa Abd El-Fattah has faced a relentless cycle of arrests, unfair trials, and arbitrary detentions. Despite completing an unjust five-year prison sentence at the end of last month, the Egyptian authorities continue to detain him. His prolonged imprisonment defies Egyptian domestic law. 

Egyptian authorities claim Abd El-Fattah’s time served in pretrial detention does not count towards his five-year sentence since he was held in pretrial detention under a different case than the one he was eventually convicted. Articles 482 and 484 of Egypt’s current criminal procedures code, however, require that an individual’s time held in pretrial detention be counted as a part of the total time served, even if multiple cases are involved. In addition, Egypt is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which mandates that a person cannot be held beyond the terms of their sentence without legal grounds. 

Abd El-Fattah’s continued detention exemplifies a legal system designed to maintain control rather than dispense justice. The proposed reforms to Egypt’s criminal procedures code would do little to change this reality. 

None of the provisions address the blatant legal prejudices that have kept Abd El-Fattah in prison over the past decade and now past the completion of his sentence. Nor do they force the Egyptian authorities to abide by existing law. In fact, among other egregious changes, the proposed amendments would undermine the right to legal counsel and restrict due process by codifying the use of remote trials, sentencing in absentia, and denying the right to hear from witnesses. Instead, what these reforms would achieve is a veneer of legality, while allowing the government to continue suppressing dissent.

This approach is not new for Egypt. Over the years, the Egyptian government has repeatedly portrayed itself as taking steps toward political openness, only to double down on repression once international scrutiny wanes. The release of a few high-profile activists, or a promise of legal reform, is often strategically timed to coincide with international events or diplomatic engagements.

But these gestures rarely result in genuine change. Instead, they function as a smokescreen to obscure the ongoing persecution of other activists, minorities, political opponents, and anyone critical of the regime. This charade has allowed Egypt to deceive the international community into believing that progress is being made while it continues to oppress those who challenge the regime’s narrative.

Take, for example, Marwa Arafa, a freelance translator, who has spent five years in pretrial detention, far beyond the legal maximum stipulated in the current civil procedures code. Or consider Ibrahim Metwally, a human rights lawyer, who has been unjustly and illegally held in pretrial detention since 2017. Both cases exemplify how Egypt’s government weaponizes laws, such as the counterterrorism law, to stifle dissent and provide a legal pretext for what is effectively arbitrary detention. Under such conditions, no legislative reform—no matter how polished—can overcome the deep-seated issues of a system designed to punish rather than protect.

The proposed reforms are particularly hollow when considered alongside the arsenal of laws that Egypt wields to justify repression. In addition to the counter-terrorism law, the authorities regularly abuse the cybercrime law, the anti-protest law, and the NGO law—all statutes that would remain firmly in place alongside the proposed law, preventing any meaningful reform.

Moreover, the Egyptian government’s repressive practices have been emboldened by the international community’s failure to stand by its commitments to uphold international human rights law and hold the Egyptian regime accountable for its abuses. In recent months, as the atrocities carried out by the Israeli government have intensified and been met with impunity, Egypt has sought to leverage the global focus on the region’s crises and its perceived role in securing stability as a cover for its own human rights violations. This opportunistic use of the Middle East’s geopolitical crisis to advance further crackdowns is particularly concerning given the unwavering support Egypt has received from the United States. 

Despite calls from human rights organizations to withhold the $320 million in military aid to Egypt conditioned on human rights benchmarks, the United States released that assistance in full in September, disregarding U.S. law and the human rights concerns inside Egypt. The message from Washington is clear: geopolitical interests take precedence over the protection and promotion of internationally recognized human rights. For Egypt, this means it can continue its crackdowns on activists, journalists, and civil society actors with minimal consequences. This dynamic only reinforces the impunity with which the Egyptian regime operates, further entrenching its repressive apparatus.

Out of desperation and frustration, Dr. Laila Soueif, Abd El-Fattah’s mother, launched a hunger strike on September 30 in response to the authorities’ refusal to release her son after he completed his sentence. Soueif’s act of protest highlights the broader problem with Egypt’s approach to justice: its arbitrary and repressive legal system and the selective enforcement of its laws. Her hunger strike is not only a call for her son’s release but also a cry for a system where legal norms are respected and human rights are upheld.

Yet, despite the suffering of families like Soueif’s, the international community remains largely silent. Egypt’s allies and partners have done little to pressure the government into complying with international standards of justice. Instead, Egypt has mastered the art of feigned reforms, claiming to address international concerns while continuing to close civic space and target civil society leaders. Hossam Bahgat, Azza Soliman, and Nasser Amin are among the civil society leaders who still face legal restrictions even after the Egyptian prosecution claimed to close the decade-long Case 173, which targeted numerous civil society organizations. 

The Egyptian government must take meaningful action if there is to be any hope for real change. This starts with the immediate release of Abd El-Fattah and all those wrongfully detained for exercising their fundamental freedoms. Genuine legal reform also requires more than drafting superficial new laws. It necessitates the political will to implement laws fairly and to ensure the independence of the judiciary. The provisions of the current criminal procedures code, after all, should guarantee a fair trial, due process, and the right to legal counsel for all detainees. But perhaps most important, it demands an end to the weaponization of the legislative process to further undermine the rule of law.

Real change also demands the establishment of a free civil and political environment, where lawyers, activists and civil society actors can operate without fear of arrest or harassment. The reality in Egypt, however, is far from this ideal. It remains a boiling pot, with discontent simmering beneath the surface due to widespread repression and socio-economic challenges.

There is still a chance to save the Egyptian people from a proposed code of criminal procedures that will not only endanger constitutional protections for civil and personal rights but will also further entrench an authoritarian police state. The international community should listen to Egyptian civil society and oppose this draft law. Otherwise, the legal framework will remain a tool of repression and reinforce that the regime can continue to offer superficial changes as a facade of progress. 

ِAs Egypt claims to embark on a path of reform, the plight of Abd El-Fattah and countless others shows that it’s not the law that needs to change, it’s the practice.

 

Photo caption: Alaa Abd El-Fattah with his mother, Dr. Laila Soueif. On September 30, Soueif launched a hunger strike to protest Abd El-Fattah’s continued imprisonment despite completing a five year prison sentence. Credit: Courtesy of Sanaa Seif