The Public Prosecution issued a decision on Sunday evening imposing a gag order on three specific criminal cases, claiming that widespread social media coverage of these incidents "harms the image of Egyptian society."
The ban, effective until investigations are concluded, prohibits the publication of any information regarding the cases except for official statements issued by the Office of the Prosecutor General.
The move follows a surge in digital circulation of details surrounding three grim incidents: an alleged double rape of two girls by their uncle, the sexual assault and murder of a young girl by her father and grandfather, and the suicide of a woman in Alexandria.
In its statement, the prosecution explained that the decision was prompted by "wide-scale circulation" on social platforms that "does not represent the statistical reality of crime rates" and carries "negative consequences for the values of the Egyptian family." The statement further noted that the public discourse had caused "offense to the victims’ families," affecting their privacy and interests through the repetitive promotion of these "criminal patterns."
The gag order applies to all broadcast and visual media, national and partisan newspapers—whether daily, weekly, local, or foreign—as well as news websites, newsletters, and social media platforms.
While legal experts acknowledge the prosecution's authority to limit publication, the scope of the ban has raised concerns. Jawaher Al-Taher, head of the Access to Justice file at the Center for Egyptian Women’s Issues, told Al Manassa that while gag orders are a legal tool to protect investigations or victim privacy, they should remain "an exception based on necessity."
"Imposing a blackout on cases with a social dimension, such as domestic violence, infringes on the right to knowledge," Al-Taher said. "It could stifle public debate and accountability, ultimately reducing actual protection for victims." She emphasized that any such order must be reasoned and proportionate to its objective, rather than being an "absolute power."
The media landscape reacted with a split between institutional compliance and professional caution. The Media Syndicate affirmed its commitment to the ban, citing the "Media Honor Code" and "professional conduct" as grounds for supporting the rule of law.
However, Khaled Elbalshy, head of the Journalists’ Syndicate, argued that gag orders are no longer a viable solution in the era of borderless information flow. In a statement titled "To those welcoming the recent gag orders," Elbalshy noted that such restrictions should be applied in the narrowest possible scope to prevent interference with justice, not as a tool for "social protection."
"Societies protect themselves by dealing professionally and seriously with facts, not by hiding them," Elbalshy wrote on Facebook. He addressed journalists directly, warning that a "race for trends" without professional standards provides a pretext for authorities to impose further restrictions. "The expansion of gag orders in the absence of professional coverage will only cost society dearly, especially since these orders cannot reach all sources of information in a state of global digital fluidity," he added.
The prosecutor’s move was preceded by administrative action. Earlier on Sunday, the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR) ordered all media outlets subject to Law 180 of 2018 to stop publishing video footage of a woman who threw herself from a 13th-floor balcony in Alexandria. The SCMR also banned the publication of the deceased’s name out of respect for her privacy and requested the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) to remove the footage from social media.
Under Article 193 of the Penal Code, unauthorized publication regarding an ongoing criminal investigation—where a gag order has been issued for reasons of public order or morality—is punishable by up to six months in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 EGP.
However, the Egyptian judiciary has previously pushed back against such restrictions. In January 2016, the Administrative Court of the State Council overturned a prosecution-mandated gag order regarding a 2012 presidential election fraud case. The court ruled at the time that "citizens and media have the right to access and discuss correct information... so that every citizen can form an opinion on public affairs in the light of truth, without restriction on the freedom of thought."
