Bulletin Summary:

1. After 5 days of detention in an unknown location.. Investigation of 6 journalists from “Matsadaksh” before the State Security Prosecution.
2. Despite his deteriorating health condition, the detention of unionist Mohamed Zahran is renewed .
3. For the second time in 15 days, defendants fail to appear.. Postponement of the prosecution’s pleadings in the case of Hamdy El-Zaeem and 167 defendants.
4. The House of Representatives postpones the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law for one year.
5. Refusal to allow journalist Abdullah Qadri to meet privately with his lawyer during the investigation.
6. A heated argument between the Head of the Bar Association and a board member against the backdrop of the medical services crisis.
7. A leaked message from Liman Minya Prison reporting a hunger strike by detainees in protest of their detention conditions.

Bulletin Items:

First. Public Prosecution Investigations:

• After 5 days of detention in an unknown location.. interrogation of 6 journalists from “Matsadaksh” beforehand the Supreme State Security Prosecution

After being detained for 5 days in an unknown location on October 3 and 4, 2026, the Supreme State Security Prosecution investigated six journalists from the “Matsadaksh” platform: Mohamed Ashraf Abou Omeira, Abdullah Qadri, Islam Barakat, Omar Helal, Mohamed Mahmoud, and Mohamed Adel, following five days of arrest and detention in an unknown location. They faced charges of joining a terrorist group, committing a crime of terrorist financing, publishing false news and statements, and misusing the international information network, in Case No. 8083 of 2026, Supreme State Security Prosecution registry.

The five-day detention of the journalists in an unknown location prior to presenting them to the investigative authority raises serious concerns regarding compliance with the constitution, which mandates that the police and the prosecution enable any detainee to make a phone call and notify them in writing of the charges against them, regardless of the reasons leading to their detention.

Second. Pre-trial Detention and Its Violations:

Amid family appeals for his release and despite his deteriorating health condition, the detention of unionist Mohamed Zahran is renewed

On October 5, the State Security Prosecution decided to renew the pre-trial detention of unionist and former parliamentary candidate Dr. Mohamed Zahran for 15 days pending investigations in Case No. 5773 of 2026, Supreme State Security Prosecution registry, in which he faces charges of joining a terrorist group and publishing false news and statements. This detention renewal comes, according to received information, amid the deterioration of Zahran’s health condition and the continuous demands and appeals by his family for his release.

The continuation of pre-trial detention in light of the deteriorating health condition of Dr. Mohamed Zahran raises questions about the necessity of balancing investigative requirements with guarantees of personal freedom and security. Pre-trial detention is an exceptional measure whose legitimacy requires the availability of legal justifications and ongoing necessity, rather than turning into a punishment prior to conviction. Furthermore, health deterioration necessitates a serious medical assessment and consideration of alternative legal measures when their conditions are met, ensuring the protection of the detainee’s safety and dignity while respecting due process.

Third. Trials:

The first half of October 2026 witnessed the trial of approximately 1,722 citizens across 63 cases—most of which were State Security felonies—before terrorism circuits and terrorism appeal circuits at the “Badr Courts Complex in Badr Prison.” Some of these trials exhibited legal flaws and a lack of fair and equitable trial standards, including:

• For the second time in 15 days, defendants fail to appear.. Postponement of the prosecution’s pleadings in the case of Hamdy El-Zaeem and 167 defendants

On September 11, the Second Terrorism Circuit at the Cairo Criminal Court, presided over by Counselor Wajdi Abdel Moneim, decided to postpone hearing Case No. 955 of 2020, Supreme State Security Prosecution registry, registered under No. 29 of 2025, Fifth Settlement Felonies, involving 168 individuals—including photojournalist Hamdy El-Zaeem—in which the Public Prosecution’s pleadings were scheduled to be heard. The postponement decision followed a letter received from the Cairo Security Directorate stating the inability to transport the defendants detained within the governorate’s jurisdiction, due to security forces being occupied with securing the perimeter of Cairo Stadium during the football match between Al Ahly and Zamalek, despite the attendance of defendants detained in prisons outside Cairo. This marks the second time within 15 days that several defendants were unable to attend, thereby preventing the completion of trial proceedings on schedule.
The repeated postponement of trials due to the inability to transport defendants raises questions regarding the impact of security and administrative arrangements on the regular course of justice, particularly since a defendant’s attendance and participation in trial proceedings are fundamental guarantees tied to the right to defense and a fair trial. Security commitments, regardless of their necessity, should not lead to the repeated disruption of litigation proceedings, requiring coordination that reconciles security imperatives with the defendants’ right to a regular trial without unjustified delay.

Fourth. Decisions and Legislations:

• The House of Representatives postpones the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law for one year

On September 30, 2026, during its extraordinary general session, the House of Representatives finally approved a bill submitted by Representative Hisham Al-Hosary and more than one-tenth of the representatives to amend certain provisions of Law No. 174 of 2025 issuing the Criminal Procedure Law. The amendment stipulates postponing its implementation for one year, so that it begins to apply starting October 1, 2027, instead of October 1, 2026.

The postponement of the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law reveals the importance of completing the necessary preparations for executing procedural legislation, especially given the law’s provisions regarding digital transformation and remote litigation. Benefiting from the safeguards stipulated by the law remains contingent upon the readiness of the concerned institutions and their ability to apply them effectively, ensuring that defense rights are not compromised and that disparities in access to justice do not arise as a result of technical glitches or unequal access to digital services.

Fifth. Acts of Authority (Negative or Positive):

A) The Public Prosecution:

• Public Prosecution statement regarding “Matsadaksh” journalists raises questions about the presumption of innocence and fair trial

On October 7, the Public Prosecution issued a statement regarding the investigations conducted by the Supreme State Security Prosecution in Case No. 8083 of 2026, Supreme State Security Prosecution registry, involving journalists from the “Matsadaksh” platform. The Public Prosecution confirmed that the investigations were based on a National Security investigation report, and that some of the defendants admitted during questioning to joining the Muslim Brotherhood and receiving funds to publish false news and statements. It added that three defendants were referred to the Forensic Medicine Authority, and the resulting reports indicated the absence of any injuries resulting from the use of force as they had alleged.
The Public Prosecution’s statement raises questions about the balance between the public’s right to know and the necessity of safeguarding the presumption of innocence, particularly with the publication of investigation details and the reiteration of phrasing contained in the National Security investigation report. This risks entrenching a prejudgment of the defendants’ guilt in the public mind prior to the adjudication of the charges leveled against them.

• Refusal to allow journalist Abdullah Qadri to meet privately with his lawyer during questioning

On October 4, during the investigation of journalist Abdullah Qadri in Case No. 8083 of 2026, Supreme State Security Prosecution, Supreme State Security Prosecutor Ahmed Arafa decided to restrict legal representation to lawyers from the Journalists Syndicate during questioning. Throughout the proceedings, he refused to permit the lawyer to consult privately with the journalist despite the journalist’s repeated requests—violating the Criminal Procedure Law, which grants lawyers the right to consult privately with their clients in the presence of the Public Prosecution.

Enabling an accused person to seek legal counsel and communicate freely with their lawyer constitutes a fundamental guarantee of the right to defense, particularly during investigations where the contours of the charges and defenses are established. Furthermore, fair trial guarantees mandate enabling the defense to fulfill its role in accordance with the law, including reviewing documents to the extent permitted by governing investigation rules. These events raise questions regarding the extent to which procedural guarantees were ensured for the journalist, alongside the importance of respecting his right to defense without restricting communication with his lawyer in a manner that might impair his ability to exercise this right effectively.

B) The Lawyers:

A heated argument between the Head of the Bar Association and a member over the medical services crisis

On October 3, Abdel Halim Allam, Head of the Bar Association and President of the Arab Lawyers Union, inaugurated the Beni Suef Lawyers Club following the completion of its renovation work, along with the legal library attached to the syndicate’s headquarters. During the event, a verbal altercation broke out between him and lawyer Ibrahim Ashraf El-Homeily during a discussion regarding medical services and government hospital contracts. After the lawyer raised observations regarding the services provided to members, the Head of the Bar Association responded sharply, threatening to refer him for disciplinary action, stating: “You will be referred for disciplinary action right now.”

Following the incident, Allam issued a statement affirming his respect for Beni Suef lawyers, emphasizing that difference of opinion and the expression of demands are rights guaranteed to every lawyer, and that institutional dialogue is the way to resolve disputes. He also invited Beni Suef lawyers to a meeting at the General Syndicate headquarters to hear their demands and contain the fallout of the incident. Meanwhile, lawyer Ibrahim Ashraf El-Homeily published an official apology to the General Head of the Bar Association, expressing regret for what he described as an unintentional misunderstanding, confirming that what occurred may have been construed in a way that offended the syndicate or the person of its Head, while praising the latter’s stance in containing the crisis.

Sixth: Prisons and Prisoners:

Ministry of Interior decides to grant an exceptional visit to prison inmates on the occasion of the anniversary of the October victories

On October 1, the Ministry of Interior announced, via its official page, the granting of an exceptional visit to prison inmates during the period from Saturday, October 10, to Thursday, November 5, 2026, in celebration of the anniversary of the October victories. The Ministry clarified that this exceptional visit is not counted toward the regular visits allocated to detainees.

Family visits remain one of the important means to maintain social and human bonds for detainees and mitigate the impact of deprivation of liberty on their relationships with their loved ones. Protecting prisoners’ rights requires ensuring the regularity of visits and facilitating them in accordance with legal rules, considering that the deprivation of liberty does not mean compromising other human rights that do not conflict with the requirements of executing a sentence or legal measure.

A leaked message from Liman Minya Prison reports a hunger strike by detainees in protest of their detention conditions

On October 8, the “Jewar” foundation published a leaked message on its Facebook page regarding a number of detainees entering a hunger strike and refusing to receive the regular prison administration rations starting October 6, 2026. According to the message, the prison administration refuses to file an official report documenting their hunger strike.

What is stated in the message, pending verification of its authenticity, raises concerns regarding ensuring the detainees’ right to express their peaceful protests, and the necessity of dealing seriously with their demands and complaints. Furthermore, documenting the hunger strike and officially recording it represents an important step in monitoring the conditions of detainees and verifying the causes of their protest, which necessitates enabling the competent authorities to ascertain the truth of what is happening, ensuring that the strikers receive necessary medical care, and safeguarding their safety and dignity.