The New Cairo Misdemeanor Court convicted political activist Ahmed Douma based on the complaints of 12 citizens and the investigations of the National Security apparatus.
According to the court’s reasoning for the conviction, which human rights lawyer Khaled Ali published on his Facebook account on Tuesday, it was proven that Douma “deliberately broadcast false news through widely circulated public means, actions that would harm the public interest, disturb public security, and weaken trust in state institutions.”
‘Anonymous’ reports
The Public Prosecution initiated the investigation based on 12 reports filed by citizens. These complaints were lodged at police stations in Cairo, Giza, Alexandria, and Dakahliya. The complainants stated that they were harmed by Douma’s activities.
The filers accused him of broadcasting rumors via social media and inciting citizens against state institutions to disturb public security and peace. They highlighted a post on his personal Facebook page titled “From the Prison Inside the State to the State Inside the Prison.”
In that post, Douma wrote, “By the way, you can turn off the searchlights inside the cells in the new detention camps; this will both save electricity and end the torture of detainees with them.”
The ruling underscores the Egyptian security state’s systematic reliance on intelligence apparatus investigations to formalize the criminalization of online speech. By validating these state security claims over defense discovery requests, the judiciary reinforces a broader structural campaign aimed at silencing political opponents who expose institutional abuses.
On June 3, the same court had sentenced Douma to one year in prison with hard labor and enforcement, following his publication of a social media post and a journalistic article addressing prison administrations’ use of bright, continuous lighting as a method of torture that deprives detainees of sleep.
National Security investigations
The court’s reasoning clearly shows that it based Douma’s conviction on two main elements: a technical report proving his ownership of the relevant Facebook account and the investigations of National Security, which the court described as serious, correct, and consistent.
The report of National Security Investigations, dated April 2026, stated that Douma habitually publishes materials aimed at offending state institutions.
That report explicitly noted offenses against the Ministry of Interior through his deliberate description of reform and rehabilitation centers as “detention camps.” It also includes the allegation that Douma claimed sentenced individuals face assault and torture, exploiting government decisions like “rationalizing electricity” to incite against the current regime.
The investigations asserted that Douma’s activity was not merely an expression of opinion, but resulted from coordination with instigating leaders abroad. This cooperation allegedly aimed to implement a hostile plan to escalate anti-state electronic activity, disturb public security, and harm social peace.
National Security accused Douma of seeking to create a “revolutionary climate” on the Egyptian street through articles containing erroneous information about internal conditions and economic crises.
The report stated this was designed to deceive citizens and stir them up to gather on public roads, assemble, and commit acts of violence and rioting.
The investigations claimed that the ultimate goal of this movement was to cut off roads, disrupt transportation, and spread chaos and terror to overthrow the state.
Denial
The court also cited Douma’s denial of the charges and his assertion that his publications fall under the category of freedom of opinion and expression. It also noted the requests of his defense team to refer the case for investigation.
The defense requested that the court inspect the cells of Badr 1 and 10th of Ramadan prisons to monitor the intensity of lighting and emergency searchlights. They also requested the summoning of media experts and psychiatrists, as well as the retrieval and review of surveillance footage inside the defendant’s place of detention.
However, the court highlighted its refusal of all defense requests, considering them unproductive in the lawsuit and aimed solely at raising suspicion. It stressed that the act of publication is technically and legally proven, adding that freedom of expression does not extend to deliberately fabricating facts and publishing false news as truths.
