Human rights groups are calling for a complete review of Egypt’s draft Criminal Procedure Law, warning that limited amendments cannot fix what they describe as deep flaws in the legislation.
The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights/EIPR and the Egyptian Front for Human Rights/EFHR issued separate statements as Parliament prepares to convene under a presidential decree. Both argue that the law’s governing philosophy entrenches existing power structures instead of protecting citizens’ rights.
EIPR stressed that the problem lies not only in defective articles but in an overarching approach that seeks to legalize and preserve the status quo in the justice system. EFHR added that restricting changes to just eight articles, as reported in the media, leaves the most serious problems untouched.
On Sept. 22, Tahya Misr listed the articles President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi cited when he refused to ratify the draft. They include rules on alternatives to pretrial detention, conditions for searching homes, questioning suspects without lawyers, custody limits in the absence of counsel, renewal of detention periods, methods of notification, appeals procedures, and the law’s effective date. The presidency argued that these provisions require clearer language and stronger safeguards.
EIPR warned that beyond these articles, the draft reduces fair trial guarantees and expands the powers of investigators over defendants. The group urged lawmakers to ground reforms in four principles: separation of powers, equality of arms between prosecution and defendants, presumption of innocence, and balance between rule and exception.
They called for eliminating vague wording such as “depending on circumstances” and open-ended extensions that strip time limits of meaning.
EFHR highlighted other provisions left outside the review, including shielding public employees and judicial officers from accountability for torture, restricting lawyers’ access to case files, limiting open trials, and widening grounds for pretrial detention with broad terms like “avoiding serious harm to public security and order.”
The group also questioned whether revisions to Article 105 would expand investigators’ authority to question suspects without lawyers.
Both organizations criticized the secrecy surrounding the drafting process and demanded an open public debate with legal experts, civil society, and professional unions. They argued that only inclusive participation can result in legislation that balances public order with defendants’ rights.
El-Sisi had returned the law to Parliament for further study, citing the need for stronger protections of home privacy and defendants’ rights, clearer wording, and more alternatives to pretrial detention.
The presidency also asked for time to prepare judicial institutions to apply new mechanisms accurately, presenting this as essential for achieving swift justice within constitutional limits.
