First: Trials
Despite the relatively long Eid al-Adha holiday period, approximately 166 court hearings involving more than 700 defendants were held during May. Most of these proceedings were conducted before State Security felony circuits and terrorism chambers at Badr Prison Court Complex, in addition to the trial of activist Ahmed Douma before the Fifth Settlement Misdemeanor Court, as well as proceedings involving several journalists and political activists.
A number of these trials were marked by legal irregularities and violations, including:
- Defendants Absent from In-Person Trials
Although the law requires a defendant’s presence during trial proceedings, several hearings took place without the attendance of the defendants. This included journalists Yasser Abu Al-Ela and Ramadan Gouida, who were absent from their trial session in Case No. 11846 of 2025 (Fifth Settlement Felony Court) on 10 May 2026, despite being held in the custody of the Ministry of Interior and despite the hearing being conducted inside a prison facility under the Ministry’s authority. They are being tried alongside poet and cartoonist Ashraf Omar.
- Violation of the Principle of Public Hearings
The principle of public access to court proceedings was not respected during the trial of activist Ahmed Douma in Case No. 4894 of 2026 (Fifth Settlement Misdemeanor Court), as members of his family were prevented from attending the hearing.
- Multiple Prosecutions for the Same Alleged Offence
– On 11 May 2026, Judge Hamada El-Sawy, the former Public Prosecutor, dismissed the defense argument presented on behalf of activist Moaz El-Sharkawy that he was being prosecuted for the same alleged offence for a second time. Regardless of the merits of the accusation, El-Sharkawy had already been tried on the same charge in 2021 and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in connection with Case No. 440 of 2018.
– According to the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), activist Ahmed Sabry Nassef, who has been detained since 2017, is currently being prosecuted in two separate cases on charges of membership in and financing an organization. This means that he is simultaneously facing prosecution for the same allegations in two different cases, in apparent disregard of provisions of the Egyptian Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibit trying a person twice for the same act.
- Prosecution Labels Defendant a “Traitor” Without Legal Basis
During the trial of activist and poet Ahmed Douma, who is being prosecuted in Case No. 4894 of 2026 (Fifth Settlement Misdemeanor Court) on charges of “publishing and disseminating false news domestically and abroad,” the Public Prosecution described him as a “traitor.”
The charges stem from an opinion article entitled “From Prison Within the State to the State Within the Prison,” in which Douma discussed his experiences and suffering during nearly ten years of imprisonment.
Although the case concerns publication-related misdemeanor charges only, the Public Prosecution’s characterization of Douma as a “traitor” prompted the defense team to formally object, arguing that the term was inappropriate, prejudicial, and unrelated to the subject matter of the opinion article at issue.
Second: Detention Outside the Law
- Trade Union Activist Shady Mohamed and His Colleagues
In April 2024, Alexandria-based labor leader Shady Mohamed and five other young men were arrested after displaying a banner on a bridge in Alexandria bearing the slogan: “Open the Rafah Crossing.”
Since that time, Shady Mohamed and his colleagues have remained in pretrial detention on charges of spreading false news, joining a terrorist organization, and misusing social media platforms, in connection with Case No. 1644 of 2024 (Supreme State Security Prosecution).
By the end of April 2026 and the beginning of May 2026, their detention had become arbitrary and unlawful, as they exceeded the maximum legal limit for pretrial detention, which is two years (24 months). They have now entered their twenty-fifth month in custody.
Although defense lawyers alerted the judges of the Second Terrorism Circuit of the Cairo Criminal Court, presided over by Counselor Wagdy Abdel Moneim and convening at the Badr Security Complex, to this legal violation, Shady Mohamed and his colleagues remain detained in contravention of Egyptian law.
- Journalist Badr Mohamed Badr
On 1 April 2026, journalist Badr Mohamed Badr completed nine years behind bars and began his tenth year in detention pending investigation in multiple cases, amid ongoing calls for his release and an end to his prolonged suffering.
Badr was arrested by security forces on 30 March 2017 and was initially detained in connection with Case No. 316 of 2017 (State Security Registry) on charges of joining an organization allegedly established in violation of the law and the Constitution, with the aim of disrupting state institutions and preventing them from carrying out their functions.
The Supreme State Security Prosecution, followed by the Criminal Court, repeatedly renewed his detention until he completed two years in custody, at which point his release should have become mandatory under the maximum pretrial detention period prescribed by law. However, this did not occur.
Although the prosecution ordered his release on 24 November 2019, Badr was subsequently subjected to a pattern of repeated re-arrests and renewed prosecutions in new cases, commonly referred to as “case recycling \ Tadweer.” As a result, he has now entered his tenth year of detention without having been convicted of any genuine criminal offense.
Third: The Negative Exercise of State Authority
On 21 May 2026, the Economic Affairs and Money Laundering Prosecution issued a decision ordering the blocking of eleven social media accounts and restricting access to them from within Egypt, pursuant to Case No. 1038 of 2026 (Economic Affairs Registry).
The list included ten Egyptian nationals residing abroad—Amr Waked, Yehia Moussa, Sami Kamal El-Din, Haitham Abu Khalil, Osama Gaweesh, Khaled El-Serry, Sherif Othman, Hisham Sabry, Mohamed Nasser, and Abdullah El-Sherif—in addition to the Israeli commentator Edy Cohen.
The blocking order covered accounts on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, X, TikTok, and Telegram.
The decision was issued by Counselor Ahmed Khafagy, First Advocate General of the Economic Affairs and Money Laundering Prosecution.
Beyond its implications for freedom of expression, the decision raises a broader question regarding the exercise of judicial authority. While the prosecution possesses and actively exercises the power to order the blocking of websites and online accounts, it appears to disregard the corresponding authority to lift or challenge restrictions imposed on access to information.
Egypt continues to block more than 500 news, human rights, and technology websites, many of which have been inaccessible for years without judicial rulings or formal findings of legal violations against them. These include independent and prominent platforms such as Mada Masr, Al-Manassa, the Arab Network for Human Rights Information, Al Jazeera, and numerous other websites.
It is therefore noteworthy that the same authority—the Public Prosecution—which possesses the legal power both to impose and to remove restrictions on access, appears to exercise only the power of prohibition while refraining from using its authority to review, challenge, or lift existing government-imposed blocks on websites and media platforms.
Fourth: A Decision That Undermines Judicial Authority and Independence
Objections have intensified within judicial circles following the exclusion of hundreds of law graduates from the Class of 2023 from appointments to the Public Prosecution and judicial bodies, despite their successful completion of the required legal and technical examinations.
According to reports, the excluded candidates were rejected because they failed to satisfy criteria established by the Military Academy, including physical fitness tests and military-style appearance and suitability assessments.
The controversy deepened after the decisions were effectively insulated from challenge, as the Supreme Judicial Council and the Special Council of the State Council rejected most appeals submitted by affected candidates, while maintaining the requirement of “security and physical suitability” as determined by the Military Academy.
Although numerous human rights advocates and political actors have called for an end to the longstanding practice of appointing judges’ sons and daughters to judicial positions and for the implementation of equal opportunity principles, the current exclusions have not primarily targeted concerns regarding the concentration of judicial appointments among judges’ families.
Instead, the exclusion of candidates on physical, social, or class-related grounds has been widely viewed as evidence of a growing erosion of judicial independence. Critics argue that such practices further undermine public confidence in the judiciary and reinforce perceptions that access to judicial office is determined by factors unrelated to legal competence and professional merit.
Fifth: Repeated Postponements of the Judges Club Elections
Significant doubts have emerged regarding the reasons behind the repeated postponement of the Judges Club elections.
The current board of the Judges Club, whose legal term expired in December 2025, has attributed the delays to procedural complications and challenges related to the formation of an election supervisory committee and the implementation of electronic voting systems. However, many judges and advocates of judicial independence have questioned these explanations.
Some observers contend that the repeated postponements are part of broader efforts to consolidate control over the Judges Club and diminish its institutional role and authority. These concerns have intensified following attempts to transfer certain powers related to judicial appointments and promotions away from judicial institutions and toward governmental bodies, including the introduction of Military Academy evaluation requirements as part of the appointment process.
The elections were originally scheduled for December 2025 but were postponed following a court ruling. They were subsequently rescheduled for 3 April 2026 before being postponed again to 26 June 2026.
Twenty years after the Judicial Independence Movement of 2006, the upcoming elections—whose nomination period closed in May 2026—are expected to feature competition among three principal blocs. According to the platform Matsada2sh (“Don’t Believe It”), these blocs are:
- The “Independence Current” bloc, represented by Judge Mohamed Refaat Gabr.
- A bloc led by Judge Rabie Qassem, Assistant Minister of Justice for Court Buildings and Real Estate Registration Affairs and a judge at the Cairo Court of Appeal, who is reportedly supported by influential circles within the Ministry of Justice.
- Judge Mohamed El-Dhahaby, who has not publicly aligned himself with a specific electoral list and is often described as representing a centrist tendency.
The significance of these elections stems from the broader political environment in which they are taking place. With the legislative branch widely perceived as being under government control, the elections are viewed by some observers as part of a larger struggle over the future independence of the judiciary and efforts to preserve its institutional autonomy.
***************************
*The Justice and Transitional Justice Bulletin is a biweekly publication dedicated to monitoring and analyzing issues related to the justice sector and its principal pillars—the Public Prosecution, the judiciary, and the legal profession. The bulletin seeks to identify shortcomings, highlight challenges, and contribute to efforts aimed at strengthening judicial independence, upholding the rule of law, and advancing the cause of justice.