Shura Council Protest Case

Upon first review, the 25 defendants were sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined LE100,000. Upon appeal, Alaa Abdel Fattah and Ahmed Abdel Rahman were sentenced to five years in prison, an LE100,000 fine, and five years of surveillance. Nineteen other defendants were sentenced to three years in prison, an LE100,000 fine, and three years of surveillance. Upon final review, the five-year prison sentence of Abdel Fattah was affirmed by the court.

This case dates back to November 26, 2013, when security forces dispersed a protest outside the Shura Council. Protesters were rallying against the newly issued Protest Law. The defendants were charged with organizing an unauthorized protest, attacking a police officer, hooliganism, committing acts of aggression against police officers, blocking the road, crowding a public place, and destroying public property. The defendants had initially also been accused of theft, but this charge was dropped in the final verdict.

During the protest in question, participants had been beaten by police officers, and female protesters were sexually assaulted. Ahmed Abdel Rahman, who was sentenced to five years, was not even a participant in the protest; he merely intervened when he saw police officers assaulting female protesters. Although a retrial was granted, the defendants were ordered detained during this time. During the trial of the case, the prosecutor presented private photographs from the laptop of Alaa Abdel Fattah; multiple pieces of suspect, contradictory evidence were also furthered by the prosecution. Before reading out the verdict in the case, the judge praised his own court for allocating significant time for statements from the defense and affirmed that the verdict was immune from any influence. During the Court of Cassation’s review of the case, the judge who had initially been assigned the case recused himself from review; the case was ultimately assigned a different judge.

Throughout the trial, many legally problematic practices were engaged in; defense lawyers accused the Interior Ministry’s witnesses of perjury and tampering with evidence. Conflicting reports and testimonies were presented; the reliance on such to achieve a conviction raises serious questions on the fairness of the trial. The manner in which evidence was presented also raises major concerns on the possibility for manipulation. Further, by presenting private photographs off of Alaa Abdel Fattah’s laptop, the prosecution violated Abdel Fattah’s right to privacy. Finally, the fact that the defendants were ordered detained despite the decision to conduct a retrial is considered an unnecessary and unfairly punitive measure taken by the state against the peaceful protesters. Ultimately, although the majority of defendants were pardoned in this case, a pardon is a band-aid solution to a deep-seated institutional need for legal and judicial reform.