Parliament Diaries| A ticking bomb in the red hall

In a room thick with tension and anticipation, a large number of MPs packed into the red hall—one of Parliament’s six meeting halls—on Sunday. They were preparing for a confrontation over the government’s draft amendments to the old rent law, one of the most politically fraught pieces of legislation tied to social stability, and long avoided by successive parliaments.

As soon as the government referred the amended text on old rental contracts to the chamber, MPs were flooded with calls from constituents. Journalists, too, pressed them with questions. What will happen to the old rental arrangements that Parliament must now reform, after the Supreme Constitutional Court handed it the case?

Landlords and tenants alike are anxiously watching the fate of a law that touches one of the most complex and long-postponed issues. Parliament Speaker Hanafy Gebaly promised a balanced law that would ensure justice for both parties, while Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Mahmoud Fawzy said repeatedly that the government is open to proposals. Yet many MPs remain uneasy about potential consequences of the bill they have been handed.

A slow-footed government sets a trap

True to form, the government showed up late to the game—introducing one of the most consequential draft laws, one that demands broad public dialogue and imaginative thinking, just weeks before the current and final legislative session ends in July.

It took the government six months to respond to the Constitutional Court's November ruling, which mandated legislative amendments to the rent law on the grounds that provisions fixing rental rates were unconstitutional. The proposed bill, which would apply to all residential units rented by individuals, whether for housing or otherwise, stipulates a twentyfold increase in current rents. The new minimum monthly rent would be 1,000 pounds ($21) in cities and 500 pounds ($10.50) in villages, with a 15% annual increase.

While the Egyptian government recently raised the official minimum wage to 7,000 pounds per month (about $147), the impact of that increase is far from universal. Millions of workers—especially those in the informal economy, which accounts for a significant portion of the labor force—earn far less, with no legal protections or stable contracts.

Even in the formal private sector, many employees are still fighting to have the new wage floor enforced. Against this backdrop, a sharp increase in old rent payments could spell financial distress for countless households already struggling to meet basic living costs.

Over and above, there is a ticking bomb in the new bill. Rental contracts would automatically expire five years after the law comes into effect—unless both parties agree to terminate them earlier.

This clause sparked panic among tenants, reflected in the dozens of calls my colleagues and I received, and the hundreds of questions directed at MPs over the past few days. People wanted to know what would become of them—the elderly, pensioners, widows, and those with disabilities.

And that wasn’t all. The bill goes further, granting landlords the right to petition a summary judge to evict tenants who refuse to vacate—without affecting the landlord’s right to sue for damages.

In an attempt to defuse the outcry, the government included a provision that grants tenants priority access to public housing—either for rent or ownership—based on criteria the Prime Minister is to determine within a month of the law taking effect, with preference given to the most vulnerable. But doubts remain.

Where’s the explanatory note?

Given the sensitivity of the law, a large number of MPs—some from the Senate—attended the first meeting of the Housing Committee tasked with debating the bill. The committee secretary handed out copies of the draft.

But MP Diaa El-Din Dawoud raised an objection. The version he had wasn’t the official text submitted by the government, he said, prompting support from fellow MP Mohamed Abdel-Aleem Dawoud. By standard procedure, MPs are supposed to receive an official version of any bill, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum detailing the amendments, their rationale, and legislative philosophy.

Majority and opposition, united

In a rare scene, MPs from the majority bloc, pro-government ranks, and the opposition all agreed on the dangers of the government’s proposal and its impact on social stability.

Ahmed El-Sigini, a leading figure in the Nation’s Future Party and chair of the Local Administration Committee, posed a series of critical questions—especially about the eviction clause following the transition period.

He emphasized the need for balance between landlord and tenant, and the importance of considering social implications. “We’re dealing with a crisis,” he said, “between landlords burdened by properties they can’t profit from, and tenants living in fear of being thrown out of their homes within five years.”

He added, “I hope the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs has the patience for what I’m about to say: the bill has nothing to do with the discussions of the 4+4 committee.”

He was referring to a committee formed in 2022 of four MPs and four government representatives to explore legislative remedies. It produced no recommendations.

“My mother, my grandmother, and my elderly sister who live in Zamalek or Dokki or any other neighborhood—what am I supposed to tell them? Move to Al-Asmarat? Not because Al-Asmarat is bad, but because this is where their lives are.”

El-Sigini’s point cut deeper: thousands of tenants, even in middle-class areas like Shubra, Daher, and Abbassia, can’t afford to move to new, unfamiliar developments—no matter how upscale. He called on the government to base any legislation on research and to draw from the committee’s discussions to craft a real solution.

Scrubbing the record

We’ve gotten used to seeing segments of MP Mohamed Abdel-Aleem Dawoud’s remarks struck from the record during general sessions. But now, it seems, the urge to censor has reached committee rooms too.

Dawoud warned that the current bill could be the political graveyard of the 2025 Parliament. He may be right: if passed in its current form, it’s unlikely MPs will survive the next election, expected by year’s end.

He accused the government of selling illusions. “This is a clear injustice to landlords and a grim future for tenants,” Dawoud said. “This talk of prioritizing vulnerable groups for public housing— When has the government ever kept a promise in legislation?” he asked, prompting committee chair Mohamed Attia El-Fayoumi to object and call for the remark to be stricken from the record. Dawoud agreed, saying dryly, “Strike it. My point was made.”

But El-Fayoumi pushed further. “We require an apology,” he said. Dawoud shot back sarcastically, “Why don’t you just revoke my membership?” Then he resumed his remarks, demanding the eviction clauses be removed because they threaten social stability.

A fireball in Parliament’s lap

MP Mostafa Bakry, another vocal critic of the bill, accused the government of tossing a fireball into Parliament’s lap. He said the proposal contradicted a 2002 Constitutional Court ruling that upheld landlords’ rights but limited inheritance of leases to a single generation.

“Are you messing with us? Playing games? This government is bullying the Egyptian people—we’ve been swallowing bitter medicine in every aspect of life,” he said.

A similar tone came from MP Amr Darwish, a member of the Youth Coordination of Parties and Politicians. “I have no questions for the government,” he said. “Its intentions are already clear.”

Darwish warned that at least three million Egyptian families would be harmed if rental contracts are liberalized. “Yes, landlords have been wronged for years,” he said. “But what happens to the tenants? Where are they supposed to go?”

Minister Fawzy tried to rebut him. “What happened when we liberalized agricultural leases?” he asked. MPs groaned. Darwish retorted, “It’s different when it comes to housing. No one sleeps on farmland—but people do sleep in their homes.”

Why force eviction?

Fawzy defended the government’s decision to set a fixed term for rental contracts. “People are asking whether the legislature has the right to end these leases after the Constitutional Court ruling. The answer is yes.”

“The court opened the door for lawmakers to regulate the matter as they see fit. And legally, yes—it’s permissible to liberalize rental contracts. The debate is only about the timeline.”

Arriving late to the committee meeting, Housing Minister Sherif El-Sherbiny tried to show some flexibility. He acknowledged the concerns about elderly and vulnerable tenants who were not accounted for in the bill.

“Both sides are suffering,” he said. “We must find a workable mechanism. We can disagree on the details, but what matters most is implementation.”

On the humanitarian front, El-Sherbiny said, “Some cases might be exempt from contract liberalization altogether—where there’s a clear need.” The state, he stressed, would not abandon anyone. “We’ve never hesitated to help—whether it’s extending leases or providing alternative housing.”

Still, he noted, “We need time to build enough units for those who meet the conditions. There are 2.5 million old-rent units. The committees that will assess these cases must include community participation for accurate evaluation.”

Faced with firm resistance from MPs, the minister tried to reassure them. “This is a consultative process,” he said. Fawzy added, “This is the government’s proposal, but we don’t vote. It’s up to you to suggest alternatives.”

What now?

Given the fierce resistance in the committee’s first meeting—and the near-consensus among MPs across the political spectrum—the draft law is likely to be amended. Most attention will go to the eviction clause, which allows landlords to seek eviction of tenants after five years. The duration itself may be extended.

One thing is certain: the government’s draft won’t pass in its current form. Its social impact is too severe, and its political cost to MPs, just months ahead of elections, is too high. Lawmakers need to show they put up a real fight, especially after failing to mitigate the economic pressures crushing their constituents.

By the end of the five-hour session, it was clear just how deep a hole the government and Parliament had dug for themselves. Reforming a law that dates back nearly a century, a law that’s long diminished landlords’ rights, now risks infringing on millions of tenants’ constitutional right to adequate housing.