Egypt’s Securitized Approach to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Egypt’s Securitized Approach to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The novel Covid-19 virus was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. Widely reported as originating in Wuhan (China) in late 2019, the virus had claimed more than 400,000 lives and 7,127,753 cases had been confirmed globally by June 10th 2020 according to official statistics.[1] By the same date, 59,561 people had tested positive and 2,450 had died from the virus in Egypt. The first incidence of Covid-19 in Egypt was discovered on February 15th.

The number of infections had reached 495 by March 26th, and since early May daily records have shown between 300-1500 confirmed cases across the 27 governorates, with the number of deaths per day ranging between 5 and 30 in April, jumping to between 47 and 97 by June 25th. However, only deaths recorded inside hospitals were counted in these figures.

As a means of combatting the increased spread of the pandemic, the Egyptian government has taken a number of ‘preventive’ measures since March 2020, including; banning large gatherings, shutting down schools, universities and institutions, allocating emergency funds to combat the crisis, controling opening hours of shops and commercial centers, halting all internal and international flights, and enforcing a partial lockdown and curfew.

Meanwhile, the Health Ministry rushed to implement a set of protective policies to control the outbreak. These included a. limiting overcrowding in hospitals and health facilities by, for instance, dispensing medicines for patients with chronic diseases for a period of three months at a time;[2] b.

establishing two hotlines – ‘105’and ‘15335’ – to answer inquiries about the pandemic, c. designating 94 hospitals to deal with Covid-19 infections and 17 quarantine hospitals to treat patients, with a total capacity of 3214 beds- incluiding 527 beds in intensive care units (ICUs) – and 413 ventilators.

However, these measures were challenged by several limitations, such as the government’s limited testing capacity, the acknowledged distortions of official statistics, the limited capacity of quarantine hospitals, the rising number of fatalties among non-hospitalized patients and medical crews, and the government’s rhetoric of placeing the blame for deaths and infections on individual citizens, which in turn increases the level of anger and disappointment felt by the public.

Limitations in Egypt’s public health policy have been coupled with significant developments in the Interior Ministry and military institutions’ handling of the crisis. This is notable in the following areas:

Closer surveillance of individuals  

Egypt’s Interior Ministry has taken a number of controversial steps to control the spread of Covid-19. A statement by the Minister of Health Hala Zayed on March 8th highlighted the cooperation between the health and interior ministries, and announced that the Interior Ministry will be monitoring all Covid-19 patients to “identify the list of people who can mix with the patients, and define and track their itineraries to facilitate the Health Ministry’s screening functions.” [3]

Another significant step towards closer surveillance of individuals was the Interior Ministry’s enforcement measure of a curfew order issued by Ministerial Decree no. 768 on March 24th. The curfew, which was widely criticized, was effective between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 am and in April more than 30,000 individuals were held in detention facilities having breached the order. This figure had risen to 142,000 by May 30th.[4] Those found to be in breach of the curfew were not only held in detention, but also faced heavy fines ranging between 4,000 and 20,000 EGP.   

Restriction of freedom of speech

Whistleblowing and reporting on Covid-19 cases by social media users has been a high state security concern since early March. On March 9th, the Higher Council for Media stated that it will take “deterrent legal actions against all newspapers, television channels, and audio and electronic media who spread rumours or anonymous news from social media pages on Covid-19.

”[5] Security institutions targeted ‘inciting elements’ who spread, allegedly, ‘rumours and fake news’ about the pandemic. In one Interior Ministry announcement, a detainee was charged with “questioning the hospitals’ ability to receive and deal with Covid-19 suspected cases, with the intention of raising the public opinion against the government.”[6]

Additionally, on March 28th the Attorney-General warned against ‘spreading rumours and false news’ and threatened a year in detention and a fine of up to 20,000 EGP for anyone who did. The General Prosecutor stated that “it closely monitors all published news on social media and is dedicated to applying articles 80 (d), 102, and 188 of the Criminal Procedures Law.

” Even after social media users’ claims were verified, as in the case of questioning hospitals capacity to handle Covid-19 cases, the accused were kept in detention for what the authorities identified as ‘misleading news’.[7] Despite international condemnation, journalist and editor in chief of Al-Manassa, Noura Younis, and prominent human rights defender Sanaa Seif, were both charged with this offence on the 24th and 25th of June respectively.[8] This provoked extensive criticism for violating the right to freedom of speech and opinion amid the pandemic.[9]

Expanding the infamous Emergency law 162/1958 

The outbreak of Covid-19 heralded a new age of the infamous state of emergency in Egypt. The Emergency law 162/1985 has been in place since April 2017 and was further extended on Monday January 20th by presidential decree no. 20/2020. However, on April 21st, Parliament approved a set of significant presidential amendments to the law, which award extensive powers of criminal investigation and judicial review to officers of the National State Security and the military forces.

[10] Analysis by legal experts from Human Rights Watch (HRW)[11] and the Committee for Justice (CFJ) have listed the main shortcomings of the new law, and its failure to meet the criteria for proportionality, scope and necessity are at the top of the list.[12]

In the recent UN Deliberation No. 11, an expert group on arbitrary detention stressed that arbitrary deprivation of liberty during public health emergencies “must be publicly declared, be strictly proportionate to the threat, be the least intrusive means to protect public health and imposed only while the emergency lasts.” A statement by HRW pointed out that only 5 of the 18 amendments to law no.162/1958 are concerned with public health emergencies and relevant developments, meaning that the remaining 13 measures are enforceable whenever declared and without being restricted to a public health emergency.

In addition, the new law poses a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law as it overlooks the principle of separation between the three main authorities; judicial, legislative, and executive. It also gives total powers to the executive authorities, represented in military and High Security emergency courts. Moreover, many articles in the new law clearly contradict the 2014 constitution of Egypt, a selection of which are elaborated on here:

• The right to litigation before an independent judiciary

The new law grants the President of the Republic the right to exercise the functions of the judiciary, in violation of article 184 of the 2014 constitution, which stipulated that: “The judiciary is independent, administered by courts of all kinds and degrees, and its rulings are issued in accordance with the law, and the law sets out its powers, and interference in matters of justice or cases is a crime that does not fall under statute of limitations.

” The new law also allows the President of the Republic to violate the principle of separation of powers by infringing on the independence of the judiciary and undermining the right of the accused to appear before his neutral judge. Article 7 of the new law allows the President of the Republic to order, under exceptional conditions, the formation of the Partial State Security courts consisting of a judge and two officers of the armed forces, and the formation of the Supreme State Security courts consisting of three advisors and two commanding officers of the armed forces.

Article 8 also allows the President of the Republic to form State Security courts with army officers only, and in such a case the courts apply the procedures provided by the President of the Republic.

• Unconstitutional prosecution of civilians

Article 4 of the new law deprives the accused of all the guarantees established in the Criminal Procedure Code at the preliminary investigation stage, since all the jurisdictions of the investigation are placed in the hands of the public and military prosecutors, impeding the defendant’s right to litigate in accordance with article 97 of the constitution. This leads to the loss of the accused’s personal liberty and individual rights, all while he is still innocent and not yet proven to be guilty in a legal trial which guarantees self-defence in accordance with article 96 of the constitution.

Moreover, Article 10 of the law gives the Public Prosecutor’s Office exceptional power, extending beyond the powers vested in its authority to the judge and the advisory chamber. Although the prosecution may, prior to these amendments, issue a pretrial detention order for certain crimes without commitment to renewal restrictions and without bringing the matter to the higher authorities, the prison term issued by the prosecution is not absolute, as article 41 of the constitution requires that the detention has a limited period of time.

Nevertheless, the new law grants exceptional powers to the public prosecutor and overlooks their primary submission to chief executive officers. The result is prolonged pretrial detention of individuals in the absence of judicial oversight, since the prosecution is not bound to complete the investigation and can choose to disclose its findings at its own discretion.

• Definition of ‘terrorist entities’ and denial of judicial supervision

The new amendments extend the definition of ‘terrorist entities’ to include individuals, businesses, media platforms, syndicates, and trade unions. Life sentences and capital punishment can now be issued for financing ‘terrorism.’ Also, under the new law, penal authorities may undertake forcible evictions, mass surveillance, seizure of property, and censorship, without abiding to judicial supervision.

• Expanding the establishment and authority of the Supreme State security emergency courts

Established as a temporary emergency court in 1981, what is principally an ‘exceptional’ entity within the ordinary national jurisdiction has effectively become the mandate-holder of all cases referred from military, public, and exceptional (Supreme State security) Prosecution offices.

Moreover, a recent order by the Attorney- General refers all offenses which violate the curfew order (including attending student gatherings, driving mass and private transportation, opening markets, cafes, entertainment restaurants, clubs, youth centers, sports halls, and craft shops, or driving mobile food carts at non-legally prescribed times), to the Supreme State security emergency court where offenders are punished by both imprisonment and financial fines.

In such a way, exceptional emergency courts, deriving their legal and judicial legitimacy from the announced state of emergency, have acquired the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. In short, the new law squanders the principles of criminal legitimacy and judicial independence and such courts undermine the individuals’ right to equality before law as guaranteed by article 53 of the 2014 constitution.

In addition, article 12 of the new law prohibits any appeal against rulings and decisions taken by the Supreme State security courts and considers these decisions to be final once ratified by the President of the Republic. Hence, once the Supreme State security court issues a sentence, it becomes enforceable immediately without needing ratification from the President and regardless of how late the ratification is issued.

The law has replaced the right to appeal the legality of sentences before the judiciary, with an administrative procedure described as a “complaint of judgements.” This is to be submitted to the military governor, better known as the President of the Republic, without giving the complainant the right to uphold the rule of ‘non-harming of the appellant’, since the President may issue an increased penalty of the complainant.

• The president’s powers

The amendments expand the President’s powers to take additional emergency measures which extend beyond his constitutional authorities. The amendments allow the President to undertake security and public order measures including the arrest, detention of individuals and inspection of places without adherence to the Criminal Procedures Code in times of ‘any’ emergencies and even in the absence of public health emergencies. This very same article was appealed by the Supreme Constitutional court on June 2nd 2012 (no.17, const. year 15) on the grounds of being unconstitutional and remains so even under the new 2014 constitution.

Furthermore, articles 13 and 14 authorize the President (or his deputy), after ratifying a conviction, to annul the sentence and file the case, decrease the sentence, or suspend its execution whether the case is then filed or ordered for retrial before another court, and to amend, decrease, abolish, and replace judicial sentences of all kinds, whether original, supplementary, or consequential. Both articles contradict the President’s powers as prescribed in the 2014 constitution, in which article 155 allows the President to affect judicial sentences only by exercising the right of pardon.

In summary, both the executive and legislative authorities have worked on impinging on more rights under the new emergency law for Covid-19. The coming together of several legislations regulating the work and specialization of public and military prosecution offices and the Supreme State security emergency courts has led to increased incidents of enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention of individuals under the newest version of law 162/1958.

Deteriorating conditions in detention centres

The heavy-handed enforcement of emergency measures and the government’s decision to ease lockdown rules and launch a ‘normalization’ phase, have both increased the risk of Covid-19 contamination inside detention facilities with the arrival of tens of thousands of new detainees in April and May. Several human rights organizations have reported daily arrests, as well as injuries and deaths inside detention centers where, even before the outbreak, overcrowding had reached 150-300 percent of the cells’ occupancy capacity[13] and poor detention conditions had preyed on tens of lives.

The reports mentioned that deaths in detention centers were caused by overcrowding, denial of medical care, and poor detention conditions (including solitary confinement, banning/restriction of medicine, banning/restriction of access to potable/clean water and bathrooms, confiscation of necessary personal belongings, and denial of medical examinations and surgical/screening needs). A more recent document looking at coronavirus-related conditions inside detention centers reports 210 incidents of poor detention conditions from 15 governorates in March and April 2020.

Thirty-three incidents of overcrowding were reported in 7 detention centers, while 11 documented deaths were caused by denial of medical care in 9 centers.The verified testimonials indicate that prisoners and detainees’ main complaint is the denial of medical examinations despite repeated requests. This makes the situation even more alarming with the new influx of detainees under the emergency measures.

The Interior Ministry’s order on March 10th banning family and legal visitations to all detention centers has added fuel to the fire. However, some facts are slowly unleashing. The ‘corona meter’ project launched in June 2020 accounts for 104 suspected Covid-19 cases, 29 confirmed, and 10 deaths among detainees, police officers, and prison staff members, which raises alarm bells about the severe consequences of securitizing the pandemic outbreak.

Source: Committee for Justice Corona meter 26/06/2020

Recommendations

The Egyptian government’s policies have contributed to securitize the pandemic crisis and enforcing further authoritarian controls on the society. However, the pandemic brings to light the following necessary policy review measures:

1. to revisit the new clauses in law 162/1958 which impinge on human rights and have little to do with public health emergencies.
2. to observe the constitutional principles of separation and balance between legislative, judicial, and executive authorities.
3. to open up opportunities for collaboration with charity and civil society organizations to help those affected by the pandemic.
4. to redirect the Interior Ministry’s financial and human resources to serving and aiding public health facilities and working through one national coordinated policy which all ministries commit to.
5. to apply strict controls on testing, isolation, and treatment services of Covid-19 patients in private hospitals.
6. to relieve overcrowding inside detention facilities by seeking alternatives to remand and pre-trial detention of those breaking the curfew or other emergency measures.

Endnotes

[1] See the World Health Organization Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Dashboard: https://covid19.who.int/

[2] Ahmad Gomaá, ‘After suspending hospital clinics, we publish the Health Ministry’s plan to deal with patients’, 24/03/2020, Masrawy: https://bit.ly/3i7dBmj

[3] Hoda AbdelRazeq, ‘Hala Zayed uncovers the Interior Ministry’s role in combating Covid-19 Pandemic’, 08/03/2020, AlFagr News https://www.elfagr.com/3888981

[4] Mostafa Atiya, ‘The Interior Ministry: arrest of 142,000 persons for breaching the curfew order in one month’, 30/05/2020 https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=30052020&id=2669bfef-b837-47c9-8bc5-df23a0934e6d

[5] Shorouk News, ‘The Higher Council for Media orders demands no anonymous news about coronavirus be published and threatens deterrent penalties for violators’, 09/03/2020: https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=09032020&id=2ed8e021-4c09-4738-8d7c-1f9c1f991ae9

[6] Mohamed AlSawy, ‘One of the inciting elements arrested for spreading false news about Covid-19’, 19/03/2020, Masrawy: https://bit.ly/2Nt8vmx

[7] Mohamed Farag, ‘The General Prosecutor warns against publishing false news about Covid-19: penalties may increase to one year of detention’, Shorouk News, 28/03/2020: https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=28032020&id=fed083f6-402b-436b-8d55-8d361166faf7

[8] Ahmed Shalaby, ‘Details of the interrogation with Sanaa Seif: the Prosecution addressed her with three charges based on investigations’, 25/06/2020, AlMasry AlYoum: https://today.almasryalyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=646411&IssueID=6458

[9] See for example, Amnesty International, ‘Egypt Human rights activist arrested outside the Public Prosecutor’s Office’, 23/06/2020: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/06/egypt-human-rights-activist-arrested-outside-public-prosecutors-office/ and Middle East monitor, ‘Amnesty calls on Egypt to protect Journalist from torture’, Middle East Monitor, 26/06/2020: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200626-amnesty-calls-on-egypt-to-protect-journalist-from-torture/

[10] The amendment law no. 22/2020 of the Emergency law was published on 06/05/2020 in the Official Gazette volume no.18/A.

[11] See the article published 07/05/2020, ‘Egypt: Covid-19 cover for new repressive powers’, accessed on 20/06/2020, on: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/07/egypt-covid-19-cover-new-repressive-powers

[12] https://cfjustice.org/category/reports/

[13] National Human Rights Council’s annual report 2015/2016

[1] See the World Health Organization Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Dashboard: https://covid19.who.int/

[2] Ahmad Gomaá, ‘After suspending hospital clinics, we publish the Health Ministry’s plan to deal with patients’, 24/03/2020, Masrawy: https://bit.ly/3i7dBmj

[3] Hoda AbdelRazeq, ‘Hala Zayed uncovers the Interior Ministry’s role in combating Covid-19 Pandemic’, 08/03/2020, AlFagr News https://www.elfagr.com/3888981

[4] Mostafa Atiya, ‘The Interior Ministry: arrest of 142,000 persons for breaching the curfew order in one month’, 30/05/2020 https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=30052020&id=2669bfef-b837-47c9-8bc5-df23a0934e6d

[5] Shorouk News, ‘The Higher Council for Media orders demands no anonymous news about coronavirus be published and threatens deterrent penalties for violators’, 09/03/2020: https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=09032020&id=2ed8e021-4c09-4738-8d7c-1f9c1f991ae9

[6] Mohamed AlSawy, ‘One of the inciting elements arrested for spreading false news about Covid-19’, 19/03/2020, Masrawy: https://bit.ly/2Nt8vmx

[7] Mohamed Farag, ‘The General Prosecutor warns against publishing false news about Covid-19: penalties may increase to one year of detention’, Shorouk News, 28/03/2020: https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=28032020&id=fed083f6-402b-436b-8d55-8d361166faf7

[8] Ahmed Shalaby, ‘Details of the interrogation with Sanaa Seif: the Prosecution addressed her with three charges based on investigations’, 25/06/2020, AlMasry AlYoum: https://today.almasryalyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=646411&IssueID=6458

[9] See for example, Amnesty International, ‘Egypt Human rights activist arrested outside the Public Prosecutor’s Office’, 23/06/2020: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/06/egypt-human-rights-activist-arrested-outside-public-prosecutors-office/ and Middle East monitor, ‘Amnesty calls on Egypt to protect Journalist from torture’, Middle East Monitor, 26/06/2020: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200626-amnesty-calls-on-egypt-to-protect-journalist-from-torture/

[10] The amendment law no. 22/2020 of the Emergency law was published on 06/05/2020 in the Official Gazette volume no.18/A.

[11] See the article published 07/05/2020, ‘Egypt: Covid-19 cover for new repressive powers’, accessed on 20/06/2020, on: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/07/egypt-covid-19-cover-new-repressive-powers

[12] https://cfjustice.org/category/reports/

[13] National Human Rights Council’s annual report 2015/2016