In a late-night session Sunday, Egypt’s special parliamentary committee finalized revisions to eight controversial articles in the country’s criminal procedure law, following weeks of political tension and criticism from rights groups. The final text introduces alternatives to pretrial detention and narrows the legal scope for home entry without a judicial warrant.
The amended law now allows precautionary measures such as electronic monitoring, geographic restrictions, revocation of firearm licenses, and prohibitions on contacting certain individuals. Article 48 has been updated to define “danger” justifying home entry without a judicial warrant as “fire, drowning, or similar threats.”
Walkout over defense rights
One of the most contentious changes came to Article 105, which permits the prosecution to interrogate suspects without a lawyer under certain conditions. Despite objections from lawmakers and legal professionals, the article passed after a 6–6 vote was broken by committee chair Ahmed Saad El-Din.
Bar Association president Abdel Halim Allam and three MPs — Maha Abdel Nasser, Diaa El-Din Dawood, and Ahmed El-Sharkawy — walked out of the Oct. 4 session in protest. They argued the amendment undermines the constitutional guarantee of legal defense under Article 54.
“This is a setback for the right to defense,” said El-Sharkawy. Dawood added that the vote violated both legal norms and professional ethics. Though President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi had recommended the article be amended to resolve inconsistencies with Article 64 — which allows emergency exceptions — the approved version retained broad prosecutorial discretion.
A revised clause was later added, requiring the prosecution to summon the suspect’s lawyer or appoint one, but still allowing interrogation to proceed if the lawyer failed to attend.
Rights groups: Reforms don’t go far enough
The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights/EIPR and the Egyptian Front for Human Rights/EFHR said the partial revisions failed to address the “core punitive philosophy” embedded in the law. “The problem isn’t just a flawed article,” EIPR said, “but the very governing philosophy of the law itself.”
Minister grilled over legal backpedaling
Three days earlier, on Oct. 2, Justice Minister Adnan El-Fangary faced heated questioning from Parliament Speaker Hanafy Gebaly over his reversal of earlier positions.
El-Fangary had previously supported the president’s objections to Articles 48 and 114 but reversed his stance during the general session, claiming further study had prompted the change. His memo to the Cabinet contradicted earlier remarks that alternatives to pretrial detention were sufficient.
“You banged your fist and insisted the alternatives were enough,” Gebaly said. “Now your memo says otherwise. What changed?”
El-Fangary cited technical and financial limitations around electronic monitoring and said his updated view reflected institutional input. His shifting position raised concerns among lawmakers that the ministry was aligning too closely with executive directives rather than defending legal consistency.
Committee formation and process
Following El-Sisi’s decision to return the draft law to Parliament for further review, a special committee was formed under Saad El-Din. Members included MPs across the political spectrum: Ayman Abu El-Ela, Mohamed (Abdel) Aziz, Alaa Abed, Tarek Radwan, and Ibrahim El-Heneidy, along with dissenting members Abdel Nasser, Dawood, and El-Sharkawy.
The president objected to vague language in Article 48, arguing it risked infringing on constitutional protections of private property. Similar concerns applied to Article 114, which governs pretrial restrictions, and Article 411, which mandates court-appointed counsel without providing a window for defense presence. El-Fangary resisted changes to Article 411, insisting the original wording ensured trial continuity.
