This week, the House of Representatives began discussions of the draft 540-article Criminal Procedures Law. So far, MPs have discussed and passed 171 articles, including — on Sunday and Monday — a number of articles which sparked widespread controversy.

Despite strong objections from opposition deputies, MPs affiliated with the majority Mostaqbal Watan (Nation’s Future) Party teamed up to approve three articles — 79, 80 and 82 — which allow prosecutors, after obtaining permission from a judge, to seize letters, messages, telegrams, newspapers, publications, and parcels, to order the monitoring of wired and wireless communications, social media accounts, e-mails, text messages and audio and video messages, to place specific mobile phones, electronic websites, and other technical devices under surveillance, and to make recordings of conversations that take place in private should this be deemed useful in revealing the truth about a felony or misdemeanour punishable by a custodial sentence of three months or more.

Orders to seize, review, monitor or record cannot exceed three months, after which they must be renewed.

The three articles faced objections from opposition MPs, particularly Wafd Party Spokesperson Mohamed Abdel-Alim and Egyptian Socialist Democratic Party Spokesperson Freddy Al-Biyadi, who argued the articles contradict constitutional guarantees to a private life.

“Prosecution officials will have sweeping powers to violate the private lives of citizens, which they may use to arrest anyone who uses an electronic device or social media to voice opposition views,” said Al-Biyadi.

Abdel-Alim expressed fears that Article 79 in particular “will be used to open the door wide to the monitoring and arrest of citizens who express political views” and requested that “the article be amended to give prosecution officials the power to monitor communications and social media accounts for a non-renewable 30-day period.”

“The words ‘renewable for a similar period or periods’ mean citizens could face monitoring for indefinite periods of time, in violation of the constitution and of human rights and freedoms,” said Abdel-Alim. He added that “this is an injustice and will be badly received by public opinion.”

House Speaker Hanafi Gebali said Al-Biyadi’s and Abdel-Alim’s objections were flawed given that monitoring will not be carried out on a large scale, requires a judicial order, and will be subject to strict legal controls.

“Under no circumstances can a person be subjected to random or illegal surveillance,” said Gebali.

He also pointed out that in 2018 the Supreme Constitutional Court endorsed the legality of monitoring communications in line with the same controls contained in the current Criminal Procedures Law.

Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Mahmoud Fawzi contended that “the purpose of the Criminal Procedures Law is to achieve justice, and the purpose of prosecution investigation is also to achieve justice, and if we want them to succeed the bodies conducting the investigation must be able to obtain evidence within constitutional controls.”

Fawzi cited Article 57 of the constitution, which states that postal, telegraphic, and electronic correspondence and the sanctity of private life are protected and may not be viewed, confiscated, or monitored except by judicial order for a specific period in cases specified by the law.

MPs also approved Article 123, which relates to pretrial detention, despite objections from the Press Syndicate, the Bar Association, and the National Dialogue’s Board of Trustees.

Fawzi defended the final text of Article 123, which now states that “the period of pretrial detention during the preliminary investigation stage and all other stages of the criminal case may not exceed one-third of the maximum custodial sentence” — in effect, four months in misdemeanours, 12 months for felonies, and 18 months if the penalty prescribed for the crime is life imprisonment — insisting that this is consistent with the recommendations passed by the National Dialogue.

“Article 123 reduces the maximum period of pretrial detention for misdemeanours from six to four months, for felonies from 18 to 12 months, and for crimes that carry the death penalty or life imprisonment from 24 to 18 months,” said Fawzi.

Justice Minister Adnan Al-Fangari said Article 123 “gives defendants a guarantee that excessive and indefinite use of pretrial detention will not be used” and meets the demands of civil society organisations on pretrial detention.

MPs affiliated with pro-government parties rubberstamped Article 123, rejecting amendments proposed by opposition MPs which included alternatives to custodial detention such as electronic surveillance and house arrest.

Abdel-Alim proposed that pretrial detention be reduced to three months for misdemeanours, six months for felonies, and one year for crimes that carry the death penalty or life imprisonment, while Al-Biyadi suggested defendants be allowed to wear an electronic bracelet as an alternative to pretrial detention, pointing out that similar devices are in use in Algeria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

Legal consultant Amr Youssef, a member of the subcommittee that prepared the draft amendments, rejected Al-Biyadi’s proposal.

“The public prosecution should have the right to place defendants in pretrial detention, particularly those with long criminal records,” said Youssef. He also pointed out that electronic tagging needs to be part of “an integrated system, that cases of compensation for pretrial detention do not apply to it, and the tagged period will not be deducted from the sentence period, as in pretrial detention.”

“Who will install the bracelets?” asked Youssef. “How much will they cost? Who will cover the expenses? And what if the person commits an act that results in the bracelet being removed?”

* A version of this article appears in print in the 16 January, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly