Authored By: Sama Hany
Mansoura University
Abstract
The recent issuance of the proposed Criminal Procedure Code has sparked deep concern and uncertainty about the future of constitutional rights and guarantees in Egypt. This is particularly since it was expected to modernize the existing legislation and not drag it backward.
The draft law was found to be in contradiction with crucial constitutional provisions concerning basic human rights, leading to widespread criticism from the public, media, and legal scholars.
This article will comprehensively explore these contradictions and analyze the significant reaction to the draft particularly from the President, human rights organizations, and the Lawyers Syndicate. Finally, it will propose specific, detailed amendments to address these legal gaps, demonstrating how precise drafting can overcome these challenges to ensure the highest possible standards of constitutional and human rights compliance.
Introduction
The draft of the new Criminal Procedure Code of 2025 has ignited wide controversy among legal specialists and non-specialists alike, even though it has not yet been officially issued. The main objective of this draft is to update the ancient 1950 legislation and keep pace with necessary developments, particularly the use of technology. The issuance of this law was vitally important for two critical reasons: first, to fundamentally improve the efficiency of the judicial system, particularly in light of the backlog of cases and delays in adjudication from which the Egyptian judiciary suffers; and second, to enable the legal system to effectively confront increasingly complex forms of crime resulting from technological evolution, such as cybercrime and organized networks.
Furthermore, the 1950 law was heavily criticized for failing to state adequate guarantees for the accused as well as the absence of limitation periods for pretrial detention, which raised many human rights concerns. For instance, under the old law, pretrial detention could extend indefinitely without clear judicial oversight, and the use of technological tools in investigations was practically non-existent.1
Therefore, this article will critically analyze the key procedural amendments within the 2025 draft and examine whether it aligns with constitutional provisions, and identify the specific reasons why it agitated public controversy. Additionally, it compares these amendments with the 1950 law to assess whether the reforms effectively address prior shortcomings.
Legal Framework
A core aspect of the criminal procedures law draft is the comprehensive restructuring of the criminal court system. This entails establishing a new First-Instance Criminal Court, formed by three counselors in each Court of Appeal district, alongside the existing Criminal Court of Appeals to review those first-instance rulings. This is an essential reform, aiming to reinforce the principle of two-tier litigation, which represents a crucial guarantee, particularly for serious crimes like felonies.2Previously, appeals against felony judgments were taken directly to the Court of Cassation, limiting intermediate judicial review3.
The draft also introduced new trial procedures, providing explicit provisions for utilizing technology in remote investigation and trial procedures.4Most notably, the new draft expands the discretionary powers of the Public Prosecution in crucial matters affecting personal liberties, specifically related to pretrial detention periods, travel bans, and communication interception.5This marks a departure from the 1950 law, which imposed stricter limits and clearer judicial oversight over prosecutorial powers.6
The moment the draft was released, it ignited public opinion and human rights debates, particularly regarding the provisions restricting personal liberties. These include the expansion of authorities to issue travel bans without clearly specifying the cases and their duration, and an unclear provision that allows the circumvention of the statutory maximum period of pretrial detention. Furthermore, the draft Expanded authority for warrantless home searches without defining exceptions, unlike the 1950 law, which narrowly specified circumstances7. This expansion of power threatens vital constitutional rights and in particular the right to defense as stipulated on the possibility to conduct an investigation with the accused person in some cases without the attendance of their lawyer.8 a provision not allowed under the old law9.
These new provisions are found to be in direct contradiction with Article 54 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to personal liberty and protection from arbitrary detention. Article 54 also explicitly includes the accused’s right to legal counsel from the moment of arrest. Furthermore, the draft provisions were found to conflict with Article 56 (Freedom of movement and travel) and Article 57 (Sanctity of residences). Finally, they contradict Article 68, which establishes general human rights protections and the right to fair litigation.10
Judicial Interpretation
The reaction from the courts, judges, and legal experts on the draft has been generally negative, stemming from all the aforementioned problems. It was described by the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) and the Committee for Justice (CFJ) as “disastrous” and a “legislative disaster.”11 However, it is expected that even if the law were issued, the courts might interpret its articles in a manner that aligns with the constitutional provisions and human rights, which could resolve the controversy. This is because some believe that most of the issues raised by this law stem from poor drafting of the texts rather than a problem in the content itself. Consequently, some analysts suggest these obstacles could be overcome solely through judicial interpretation. However, it is essential to recognize that legislative texts must not, in any way, conflict with the Constitution. Most significantly penal law texts must be unequivocally clear, allowing no room for further interpretation. This aligns with the principle that criminal provisions shall not be subject to analogy or broad interpretation, and this need for precision was the main reason why the President of the Republic referred the draft back to the House of Representatives.12
Critical Analysis
When the draft was referred back to the House of Representatives following the President’s objection to only eight articles, the House only reconsidered the contested texts. This left other crucial articles unreviewed. Moreover, even the revised articles remained poorly drafted, failing to provide the necessary clarity. A striking example of this misunderstanding is the handling of the effective date. While the initial text stipulated its immediate effect the day following publication and the Presidential objection aimed to grant necessary implementation time only for specific articles, the House ultimately delayed the enforcement of the entire law.13
While the new law introduces new challenges for judges, the establishment of courts of first instance and the continuation of the courts of appeal could increase the backlog of cases, an outcome the draft explicitly sought to avoid through the introduction of technological means. Furthermore, it places an immense burden of responsibility on prosecutors by granting them extensive authority over pre-trial detention, travel bans, inspection, and communication control. Most notably, the law negatively affects lawyers by restricting their ability to effectively defend and thereby jeopardizing the rights of their clients.
As a result, the Bar Association took center stage by strongly rejecting several provisions, considering them a direct reduction of the lawyer’s role. The most criticized articles include Article 10514, which permits the investigation of the accused without the presence of their lawyer in certain cases, and Article 24215, which allows the referral of a lawyer for trial for contempt of court without sufficient guarantees.
Their strong objection was further represented in the withdrawal of the Bar Association’s representative from parliamentary discussions on the bill.
The deficiencies in the draft become even more evident when compared to international standards for due process. For instance, the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and contemporary European reforms require that all detention decisions be made exclusively by a judge or competent judicial authority. Furthermore, frameworks like the EU Directives and U.S. Law stipulate that the right to counsel is absolute and guaranteed from the moment of arrest or detention, a principle directly challenged by the draft’s Article 105 exceptions. Finally, while international bodies such as the UNCITRAL Model Law and the OECD welcome the use of technology, they restrict its application in criminal proceedings by imposing strict rules. These rules ensure that technological use does not compromise the defendant’s right to be physically present, to confront witnesses, or to communicate privately with counsel.16
Recent Developments
The draft of the law has not been officially enacted. Given that parliamentary elections for the forthcoming term are currently held, the revision of the bill will be deferred to the upcoming parliament. This provides a vital opportunity to reconsider not only the eight articles objected to by the President but also all the controversial provisions raised by legal experts and human rights groups. When undertaking this necessary revision, it is essential to prioritize clear drafting of the texts to prevent the broad expansion of authorities or conflicting interpretations. Crucially, the revised draft must emphasize human rights, personal liberties, and the right to counsel to ensure absolute compliance with the Constitution. Any exceptional cases allowing deviations from constitutional rights must be exclusively and narrowly specified, and vague terms such as “danger” (which was one of the notes explicitly raised by the President)17 must be precisely defined to eliminate ambiguity and uphold the principle of legal certainty.
However, the fate of the draft, and its subsequent referral back to the legislature, was not solely determined by institutional oversight; it was fundamentally shaped by the vigorous and sustained public objections from civil society, legal commentators, and the media. Indeed, organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International publicly welcomed the President’s decision to return the bill to Parliament, arguing that had the law been enacted as initially formulated, it would have set the country’s criminal justice system back decades.18
Proposed Legislative Amendments: A Way Forward
As for Article 4819, it might be useful to define “Imminent Danger” as a direct threat to life, serious injury, or major property damage, coupled with the impossibility of obtaining a prior judicial warrant due to time constraints. Two key conditions may justify exceptions to the constitutional principle of the sanctity of the home: (1) the existence of a threat to life, injury, or property damage, and (2) the impossibility of obtaining a warrant due to time constraints.
As for Article 10520, which allows investigation without counsel in “necessity” cases, it is suggested to establish specific criteria for these cases, since it is impossible to enumerate all situations that may constitute a matter of necessity, any investigation conducted without a lawyer present must be subject to immediate and subsequent judicial review to ensure that the necessity is justified.
As for Article 11221, it is suggested to abolish the concept of “Temporary Deposit” and replace it with an explicit obligation to release the accused after a maximum of 24 hours if the prosecution is unable to question them in the presence of their lawyer. This ensures full compliance with Article 54 of the Constitution22. However, some exceptions should be explicitly stipulated, such as in cases of terrorism or organized crime, which must be subject to immediate judicial oversight.
Regarding Article 11423, it is suggested that the alternatives to pretrial detention be made mandatory to limit the expansion of prosecutorial authority. Any decision to replace an alternative measure with detention must be issued by a competent judge.
As for Article 12324, once the maximum period of pretrial detention lapses, the entire matter must be automatically referred to the Criminal Court, This ensures that the judge remains the ultimate authority over restrictions on liberty and prevents arbitrary use of “Recycling.”
Regarding Article 23125, concerning traditional notification in cases where electronic notification is not feasible, it is suggested to implement a method to verify that electronic notifications are received with certainty. If this is not achieved, authorities must revert to traditional notification methods.
As for Article 41126, if the accused’s counsel is absent during the appeal, the court must postpone the hearing and re-notify the accused. If the accused fails to appear at the subsequent session, the court shall appoint a lawyer to continue the proceedings.
Finally, regarding the date of entry into force of the law, it’s suggested to separate the law’s entry into force: Immediate application for non-technical provisions, and a delayed effective date for technological measures (e.g., remote hearings) to allow for the necessary infrastructure setup.
It is essential to emphasize the clarity of drafting and the use of precise and consistent terminology to preclude broad interpretations or situations not exhaustively defined. It is also crucial to ensure judicial oversight of procedures that may involve an arbitrary or abusive exercise of prosecutorial powers. These safeguards help ensure the protection of constitutional guarantees and human rights standards.
Conclusion
The proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code represent a significant step toward modernizing Egypt’s criminal justice system. Yet, perhaps this step still requires refinement to achieve an ideal system of justice that neither raises concerns of conflict with the Constitution nor threatens basic human rights. It is crucially important that the final legislation gives public reassurance that procedures are fair, given that the Criminal Procedures Law is often described as the “Law of the Innocent”; it must therefore provide comprehensive guarantees to ensure genuinely fair and just procedures.
Since the law has not yet been enacted and remains under parliamentary consideration, the opportunity to fully realize these essential objectives remains available. The hopes and expectations are now heavily placed on the forthcoming Parliament to meticulously review the identified shortcomings.
Bibliography
Books / Reports / Papers
- EIPR. ‘Four Principles Must Guide Draft Criminal Procedures Code Review’ (Position Paper). 30 September 2025.
- EIPR. ‘Towards a Just Criminal Procedure Law: Campaign Publishes Position on Approved Amendments’ (Position Paper). October 2025.
- Human Rights Watch (HRW). ‘Egypt: President Rejects Flawed Criminal Code’ (News Release). 23 September 2025.
- Human Rights Watch. ‘Review of Egypt’s Draft Criminal Procedure Code’ (Analysis). 2 October 2024.
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and others. Joint Statement: ‘Civil Society Welcomes Decision Not to Sign Egypt’s Draft Criminal Procedure Code into Law’. 23 September 2025.
- Legislative Committee Report. ‘Draft Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code Introducing the System of Felonies Appeal’ (House of Representatives, Egypt). January 2024.
Constitutions / Statutes / Legislation
- The Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014, arts 54, 56, 57, 68. 2. Criminal Procedure Code, Law No. 150 of 1950 (Egypt).
- Draft Criminal Procedure Code 2025 (unpublished draft, Egypt).
Newspaper / Media
- Esaam, S. ‘Parliament stamps final approval on criminal procedures code despite MP walkout’. Manassa News. 16 October 2025.
- ‘Majlis Al-Nuwāb Yuwāfiq ‘Alā Dawābit Al-Muḥākamāt ‘An Bu’d’ (in Arabic) (citing Article 525 of the Draft CPC). Al-Shorouk News. 23 February 2025.
1 Criminal Procedure Code, Law No. 150 of 1950 (Egypt), art.117,118,119.
2 Legislative Committee Report to the House of Representatives on the Draft Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code Introducing the System of Felonies Appeal (House of Representatives, January 2024)
3 CPC 1950, art. 381.
4‘Majlis Al-Nuwāb Yuwāfiq ‘Alā Dawābit Al-Muḥākamāt ‘An Bu’d’ (Al-Shorouk News, 23 February 2025) (in Arabic) (citing Article 525 of the Draft CPC).
5(EIPR), ‘Four Principles Must Guide Draft Criminal Procedures Code Review’ (Position Paper, 30 September 2025)
6 CPC 1950 art, 162, 165, 167.
7 CPC 1950 art, 101, 102.
8 Human Rights Watch (HRW), ‘Egypt: President Rejects Flawed Criminal Code’ (News Release, 23 September 2025)
9 CPC 1950 art 130.
10 The Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014, arts 54, 56, 57 and 68.
11(EIPR), ‘Towards a Just Criminal Procedure Law: Campaign Publishes Position on Approved Amendments’ (Position Paper, October 2025)
12 EIPR, ‘Towards a Just Criminal Procedure Law’ (n 6).
13 EIPR, ‘Towards a Just Criminal Procedure Law’ (n 6).
14 Draft Criminal Procedure Code 2025 (unpublished draft, Egypt), art 105
15 Draft CPC 2025, art 242
16 International human rights standards, as highlighted in reports by Human Rights Watch, ICCPR, and other sources, indicate that detention decisions should be made exclusively by a judge (Human Rights Watch, 2 October 2024).
17 Esaam, S. ‘Parliament stamps final approval on criminal procedures code despite MP walkout’. Manassa News. 16 October 2025.
18 International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and others, Joint Statement: Civil Society Welcomes Decision Not to Sign Egypt’s Draft Criminal Procedure Code into Law, 23 September 2025.
19 Draft CPC 2025, art 48.
20 Draft CPC 2025, art 105.Draft CPC 2025, ar
21 Draft CPC 2025, art 112.
22 Egyptian Constitution 2014, arts 54.
23 Draft CPC 2025, art 114.
24 Draft CPC 2025, art 123.
25 Draft CPC 2025, art 231.
26 Draft CPC 2025, art 411.
