Government turns to Nation’s Future to delay Criminal Procedure Law

Just hours before Egypt’s new Criminal Procedure Law was set to take effect, the House of Representatives voted during an emergency session on Wednesday to delay its implementation until October 1, 2027.

Discussions during the House plenary session revealed that independent and opposition lawmakers had been caught off guard the previous evening by a presidential summons to an emergency session on an unannounced agenda.

The new draft bill amending the law’s effective date was only unveiled at a 10 am meeting of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, hours before the full chamber convened.

The draft law’s explanatory memorandum, obtained by Al Manassa, acknowledged that necessary organizational, institutional, technical, and human preparations required to enforce the new law’s provisions were incomplete. It noted that practical considerations require giving implementing authorities sufficient time to ensure system readiness across all components, “to guarantee implementation.”

Parliamentary anger

News websites and newspapers initially reported the draft law as a government proposal. 

However, the ambiguous manner in which the emergency session was called raised concerns among lawmakers, drawing criticism from MP Mustafa Bakri, who insisted that the debate could have been announced directly, emphasizing that “delaying the implementation of the law is not a military secret.”

MP Diaa El-Din Dawood objected to the timing of the proposal after years of drafting the law, demanding that the government “provide clear data regarding court readiness to implement the law and what has actually been accomplished.”

Parliamentary skepticism escalated over who was truly behind the law’s explanatory memorandum. MP Ahmed Farghaly questioned whether the bill was “in response to a government request or an initiative by MPs,” while MP Rawya Mokhtar warned against exporting the crisis to parliament. She emphasized that “lawmakers should not bear responsibility for government unreadiness,” explicitly asking whether the government had fallen short.

The Ministry of Justice had announced earlier this month its readiness to implement the law by launching a remote criminal litigation platform and establishing phone notification offices in courts. 

Building on those previous assurances, MP Ali Khalifa confronted executive branch representatives present, including Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Hani Hanna, pointing to previous statements by the Minister of Justice regarding “a comprehensive plan to implement the digital system.” Khalifa questioned “the reasons for talking now about a lack of readiness,” a sentiment echoed by MP Mohamed Abdel-Alim Dawood, head of the Wafd Party parliamentary bloc.

MP Ahmed Alaa Fayed questioned the political cost of the emergency session, saying, “We have ended up working for the government.”

Overt maneuvering

Faced with lawmaker criticism, the chairman of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Counselor Mohamed Eid Mahgoub, quickly asserted that “the draft law was submitted by the House of Representatives, not the government.” 

Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Counselor Hani Hanna echoed this stance, maintaining the government had no role in drafting it and claiming it “attended the committee solely to present its opinion on a bill submitted by MPs.”

Regarding readiness, Hanna stated that several courts had already been prepared, while others, including criminal courts of appeal, still require necessary equipment, prompting the government to support delaying implementation for one year.

MP Hesham El-Hosary of the Nation’s Future Party identified himself as the bill’s sponsor and defended the amendment. He explained that he had communicated with the Speaker of the House regarding a bill to adjust the implementation date, confirming that it was signed by 62 MPs. 

El-Hosary stated that the objective of the delay was to avoid implementing a new law before completing the required infrastructure, asking whether it would benefit citizens to enact a law while implementing bodies remain unprepared. His remarks drew applause from his fellow Nation’s Future Party MPs in the committee.

An ‘eleventh-hour law’

Opposition MPs extended their criticism of the government’s position during the plenary debate, which concluded with a standing vote approving the delay law. 

MP Mohamed Abdel-Alim Dawood described the amendment as an “eleventh-hour law,” revealing that lawmakers were unaware of the meeting’s agenda until they entered the committee room.

In a statement revealing how parliament was forced to step in as a “lifeline,” MP Mustafa Bakri asked, “What if MPs had not submitted the request to delay the law?” He admitted that failing to intervene would have confronted everyone with a “real crisis,” while demanding that the postponement should not delay the release of pretrial detainees unless they were involved in crimes.

MP Irene Said declared her complete rejection of the delay bill, objecting to the text being presented on paper carrying no signature or official seal.

“How do we reach the eve of implementation only to announce we need an additional year to prepare, after all the debate and institutional attention this law received?” Said asked.

She questioned the basis for setting a one-year deadline and whether it would resolve the crisis or merely postpone it. She insisted that the law take effect immediately to enforce its “guarantees intrinsically linked to citizens’ rights and freedoms,” holding the government fully responsible for negligence.