Egypt's Best Known Activist on Trial

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who holds dual Egyptian and U.S nationality, is a renowned human rights activist and professor of sociology at the American University of Cairo. In 1988, Ibrahim founded the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, a research and advocacy institute in Cairo, concerned with issues of democratization and political and social development. He remains the director and chairman of the Center’s board of trustees. Several of his co-defendants were either permanent employees of, or were working on specific projects for the Center. Others worked at the Association for the Support of Women Voters (Hay’at Da’am al-Nakhibat, or Hoda Association), an affiliated organization, of which Professor Ibrahim is the treasurer.

Part of the work being conducted by the Ibn Khaldun Center and the Hoda Association at the time when the defendants were arrested involved preparation for the 2000 Egyptian parliamentary elections. In particular, these organizations were engaged in voter education projects, which were being partially funded by the European Union. Previously, Saad Eddin Ibrahim had served as Secretary-General of the Independent Commission for Electoral Review, which had monitored the 1990 and 1995 elections in Egypt. This Commission had been highly critical of irregularities in the previous elections. Prior to his arrest, Professor Ibrahim had indicated his intention to monitor the 2000 elections.

Pre-trial process and charges

Saad Eddin Ibrahim was arrested at his home on the evening of June 30, 2000. That night and during the following days, many staff members of the Ibn Khaldun Center and the Hoda Association were also taken into custody. Over a period of several weeks, the detainees were interrogated by officers of the State Security Prosecution, but not charged with any offence. By the end of August, all had been released on bail. At the end of September, a total of 28 individuals learned that they had been indicted and would be tried before a Supreme State Security Court on charges that were subsequently communicated to them in writing.

Under a law passed in 1980, on the basis of long-standing emergency provisions, the Supreme State Security Court is competent to try cases involving certain offences deemed prejudicial to the security of the state. These courts constitute a parallel system of justice in Egypt and have been criticized repeatedly by human rights organizations, the U.S. State Department’s annual reports on human rights practices, and United Nations human rights bodies for being in violation of basic rights to fair trial and due process. The courts are composed of a panel of three civilian judges, which may be augmented by two military judges. The right of appeal from judgements of these courts is limited.

Saad Eddin Ibrahim and his co-defendants were indicted on four main charges: (1) conspiring to bribe public officials to undermine the performance of their duties (articles 40 and 48 of the Penal Code); (2) receiving donations without prior permission from the competent authorities (articles 1 and 2 of Military Order No. 4, 1992); (3) deliberately disseminating false information abroad harmful to Egypt’s interests (article 80 of the Penal Code); (4) defrauding the European Union (article 336 of the Penal Code).

The first of these charges, leveled against five defendants, was based on allegations that Professor Ibrahim and his colleagues had bribed officials at the Egyptian national broadcasting and television center, for media coverage of their work. The second charge related to the receipt of funds by the Ibn Khaldun Center and the Hoda Association from the European Union, for specific projects. Under Military Order No.4 of 1992, passed in the wake of a serious earthquake in Egypt, the Minister of Social Affairs must approve the collection of foreign funds by non-governmental organizations.

It was Military Order 4 of 1992 that carried the heaviest penalty. It is an exceptional piece of legislation decreed to respond to a particular set of extreme circumstances that was applied arbitrarily to a completely unrelated matter.

The third charge alleged that Professor Ibrahim had made statements, disseminated abroad, to the effect that any elections held in Egypt were rigged, and that there was widespread religious discrimination in the country. The fourth charge against Professor Ibrahim was that he had presented false claims to the European Union for expenses that had never been incurred. This charge was made despite the fact that the EU itself refuted the claim that it had been defrauded.

The trial and cassation procedure

The trial, before the Supreme State Security Court at Bab-El-Khalq, in south Cairo, commenced on November 18, 2000. It was conducted over a period of seven months and those defendants who were present were held in an iron cage within the court room. Nine defendants were tried in absentia. Numerous local and international human rights groups, plus representatives of several governments, followed the trial closely and issued reports and statements challenging the fairness of its conduct.

On May 21, 2001, after only an hour of deliberation, the judges returned their verdict. The defendants were all acquitted on the first charge of conspiring to bribe public officials, on the basis of insufficiency of evidence. On the other three charges outlined above, however, the defendants were convicted and sentenced to a range of terms of imprisonment. Saad Eddin Ibrahim was sentenced to seven years and taken immediately to Torah prison for imprisonment. Due to a deterioration in his health, he was later moved to a prison hospital.

The defendants appealed the decision of the Supreme State Security Court, using the cassation procedure provided in Law No. 57 of 1959. This permits the Court of Cassation to determine whether a verdict is based on a violation, misapplication or misinterpretation of the law, or whether there have been procedural irregularities that had a bearing on the verdict. On February 6, 2002, the Court of Cassation overturned the decision of the Supreme State Security Court, finding that it had not properly evaluated the prosecution and defense arguments. The Court further ordered that the defendants be released, prior to a re-trial before another Supreme State Security Court.

This court ruled that a retrial was necessary since the defendants had been sentenced by judges who had not properly evaluated prosecution and defense arguments before coming to their judgment.

The re-trial began on April 27, 2002, before a State Security Court. On July 29, 2002 the court convicted Ibrahim to seven years with hard labor. Four other defendaants also received prison terms: Magda al-Bey, 3 years; Mohammed Hassanain, 3 years; Nadia Abdel Nour, 2 years; Marwa Zaki, 2 years (in abstentia).

On December 3, 2002 the Court of Cassation threw out the State Security Court's second ruling in the case. Dr. Ibrahim and the other defendants were released pending the outcome of a third trial, which ended on March 18, 2003.

In this trial, heard by the Court of Cassation rather than the State Security Court, Saad Eddin Ibrahim and two of his co-defendants, Mohammed Hassanein and Nadia Ahmed Abd el Nour, were cleared of all charges. A fourth defendant, Magda el Beh, received a six month suspended prison term, and was not returned to prison.

At a court hearing at the beginning of this trial, Ibrahim’s lawyers had systematically refuted the prosecution’s charges that Ibrahim and his colleagues for the research and advocacy center that he directed had been involved in fraud, in publishing false information to tarnish Egypt’s reputation or had received foreign donations without permission. The prosecution offered few arguments to support its case, leaving the defense hopeful that the court would rule in its favor. Nevertheless, the acquittal of all the Ibn Khaldoun staff members came as a great relief, given the troubling rumors of political manipulation of the judiciary that swirled around the case.

Violations of human rights

Human Rights First believed that the charges brought against Saad Eddin Ibrahim and his colleagues were politically motivated, and constituted state harassment and obstruction of independent human rights defenders and organizations in Egypt. Moreover, the procedure by which Professor Ibrahim and the other defendants were arrested and detained in 2000, for several weeks without charge, was a violation of their rights to be free from arbitrary detention. The violations of the defendants’ rights continued and were compounded during the pre-trial and trial period. In particular, during the trials before the emergency court, the defendants did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense, and were denied access to crucial documents. Important issues raised by the defense in the course of the trial were not addressed by the Court, and the judges delivered their verdict extremely quickly, despite the fact that the defense had submitted additional documents for their consideration that same day. All of these factors demonstrated that the defendants did not receive a fair trial, as required by article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The charges against Saad Eddin Ibrahim and the other defendants should never have been brought. If human rights defenders are to be enabled to perform their important role in society, as recognized by the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, they must not live under threat of prosecution for their legitimate activities. The trial of Professor Ibrahim and his colleagues had a chilling effect on the Egyptian human rights movement.