Criminal Procedures Law amendments: Approved but still unconstitutional!!

Too many things are happening in Egypt and along its borders this week — but this is a particularly important development that deserves everyone’s attention.

On Thursday, Egypt’s House of Representatives approved amendments to the Criminal Procedures Law but postponed their enforcement until October 2026, following presidential directives that sent the legislation back for revision. The delay aims to allow additional time to ensure the law’s effective and orderly implementation.

Ancient Egyptian Deity of Justice Maat and the Egyptian Parliament

In September, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi referred the draft law back to parliament after objections were raised to several provisions, including Article 105. Parliament had originally passed the 544-article bill in April, following three years of preparation and five months of debate.

Now, the parliament has approved the amended version on the final day of its session — and what a finale it was.

According to the government, the legislation aims to modernise Egypt’s justice system and will take effect at the start of the next judicial year, in October 2026, following presidential ratification.

The Ministry of Justice explained that the postponement reflects practical and organizational considerations highlighted in the president’s observations — including the need for extensive technical and administrative preparations, such as establishing phone-based notification centers in all district courts, training judicial personnel, and completing the digital infrastructure required for the law’s implementation.

However, despite parliamentary approval, controversy continues to surround the amendments — particularly Article 105, which allows prosecutors, under certain urgent circumstances, to interrogate defendants without their lawyer present.

Yes, you read that right: “to interrogate defendants without their lawyer present under certain urgent circumstances.”

The amendment, proposed by the Ministry of Justice and adopted by the special parliamentary committee, stipulates that if a lawyer cannot attend promptly, the prosecution may request the local bar association to appoint one — or proceed with the interrogation until the lawyer arrives. The appointed or retained lawyer retains the right to review all procedures conducted in their absence.

Egypt’s main bar association, the Lawyers Syndicate, has completely rejected this amendment, insisting it is unconstitutional.

Abdel Halim Allam, the head of the Egyptian Lawyers Syndicate, who attended the session, firmly rejected the changes to Article 105 and opposed any wording that could permit interrogations without a lawyer present.

He was not alone.

Allam was joined by six MPs from the Egyptian Social Democratic Party (ESDP) — the only opposition voice in this parliament, albeit a weak one.

Together, they rejected the amendment, arguing that it contradicts President El-Sisi’s earlier calls for stronger guarantees of defense rights, not their restriction. They also warned that the change could raise constitutional concerns, citing potential conflicts with Article 54 of the Constitution, which safeguards the right to defense, and could harm Egypt’s human rights record both domestically and internationally.

“I state it loud and clear in today’s session — I reject, completely and unequivocally, any exception that allows the interrogation of a defendant before the presence of their lawyer. A defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and Egyptians deserve better treatment than this,” declared MP Maha Abdel Nasser of the ESDP during the heated debate.

Dr. Freddy El-Bayadi, MP and Deputy Head of the ESDP, also sharply criticized the proposed article, describing it as “a direct violation of Article 54 of the Constitution” and “an explicit constitutional breach that cannot be accepted under any circumstance.”

El-Bayadi began his remarks by praising Egypt’s recent election to the UN Human Rights Council — but tied the achievement to domestic accountability:
“This international position is not merely ceremonial, but a commitment to ensure our national legislation aligns with the human rights standards we champion before the world.”

He further warned:
“If Article 64 carries a constitutional concern, it should be amended — not replaced with a new article that contradicts a clear constitutional right like Article 54. We cannot correct one flaw by creating a greater one.”

According to reports, the six MPs eventually walked out of the session — which was scheduled barely 24 hours in advance despite its importance — because, in the end, the debate felt futile amid the overwhelming chorus of “Yes, sir” votes and the absence of any serious discussion of such a critical article.

The Lawyers Syndicate and the ESDP MPs were not alone in their rejection of the article on Thursday.

The thing is, it’s not just Article 54 — there are other articles as well.

 Prominent human rights lawyer Nasser Amin described the day as “a dark day in the history of justice in Egypt” on his social media accounts.

يوم اسود فى تاريخ العدالة فى مصر
أن يستجيب البرلمان لاعتراضات الرئاسة ،بمايسمح بالتحقيق مع المتهم فى غيبة محاميه.

— Nasser Amin (@NasserAmi) October 16, 2025

“A dark day in the history of justice in Egypt — for parliament to respond to the presidency’s objections in a way that allows the interrogation of a defendant in the absence of their lawyer,” Amin said.

Journalist and legal expert Mohamed Bassal warned that some of the latest parliamentary revisions to the Criminal Procedures Law risk undermining constitutional safeguards, particularly Article 54 of Egypt’s Constitution, which prohibits initiating investigations without a lawyer present.

Bassal explained that several of the new clauses introduced by the special parliamentary committee appear to circumvent the president’s objections, and the constitutional guarantees he called to uphold.

He specifically pointed to two controversial amendments: Article 105, which we already discussed, and Article 112, which allows prosecutors to detain suspects for up to 24 hours in the absence of their lawyer, until the interrogation can be conducted.

Bassal said this amendment blatantly contradicts Article 54, allowing detention without a judicial order and eroding personal freedoms.

He urged that debates on the bill be postponed to the next parliament to allow for a calmer, more inclusive discussion with lawyers and academics who have raised numerous concerns.

Bassal concluded that these exceptions must be deleted entirely, warning that their inclusion would mark a setback for justice and constitutional rights in Egypt.

Prominent Egyptian human rights lawyer Negad El-Borai sharply criticized on Wednesday in a video the amendments, describing them as “riddled with constitutional violations” and urging parliament to postpone further discussion until the next legislative session.

In a statement posted online, El-Borai said the bill includes an article that “contradicts several constitutional provisions — namely Articles 53, 94, 96, 97, and 99 — by stripping victims of torture and human rights violations of their right to directly file criminal cases against offenders.”

Instead, he explained, the law requires such cases to be initiated exclusively by the Public Prosecutor or a senior prosecutor, effectively “blocking victims from accessing the courts” if the prosecution declines to act.

“The danger here,” Borai warned, “is that this restriction cannot even be challenged before the Supreme Constitutional Court, since victims would have no standing to file a case in the first place.”

He also raised concerns about pretrial detention, stressing that without a fixed timeframe for investigations, defendants may remain under indefinite restrictions.

“Even if released, they could still face asset freezes or travel bans for years, with only the right to appeal every three months — this is not justice,” he said.

El-Borai further highlighted procedural flaws in trial guarantees, emphasizing that the law fails to ensure defendants and their lawyers the right to access recorded evidence and official documents necessary for their defense.

“Neither a judicial officer nor a prosecutor should ever be allowed to interrogate a suspect in the absence of their lawyer — under any circumstances,” he criticized Articles 105 and 64, saying they undermine the fundamental right to defense.

Just like Bassal, El-Borai appealed to parliament to defer debate on the law altogether to the next parliament, but no one listened.

While several countries allow narrowly defined exceptions to the right to counsel during interrogation, Egypt’s proposed amendment to Article 105 extends this discretion far beyond international norms. 

In most advanced legal systems — including those of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — questioning a suspect without their lawyer is permitted only in exceptional cases involving imminent security threats or risk of evidence destruction, and even then, under strict judicial oversight and time limits.

By contrast, the Egyptian amendment would allow prosecutors to proceed with interrogations in ordinary cases whenever a lawyer fails to appear promptly, a provision critics say undermines Article 54 of Egypt’s Constitution and contravenes international human rights standards that guarantee legal representation as a fundamental safeguard against coercion.

Under Article 54 of Egypt’s current Constitution, personal freedom is a natural and inviolable right. No one may be arrested, searched, or detained except by a reasoned judicial order required for investigation. 

Anyone whose freedom is restricted must be immediately informed of the reasons, notified in writing of their rights, and enabled to contact their family and lawyer without delay.

 Interrogation may not begin except in the presence of a lawyer, and if none is available, one must be appointed. 

The article also guarantees the right to appeal detention before a court within a week and mandates immediate release if no ruling is issued. It further requires the state to compensate individuals for unlawful detention or overturned sentences, and stipulates that no one may be tried in cases carrying imprisonment except in the presence of a lawyer, whether privately retained or court-appointed.

There is still time to amend the law again via a new parliament. I know I may sound naive, but one should not abandon hope.