Egypt’s Supreme State Security Prosecution has referred journalist Ahmed Bayoumi and 64 other detainees to the Emergency State Security Court (Terrorism Circuit), in case no. 5054 of 2024 (Supreme State Security). The charges include “joining a terrorist group” and “committing a terrorism-related financing offense,” with no trial date announced yet.
The case involves 65 defendants from 14 governorates, including Cairo, Giza, Alexandria, North Sinai, and New Valley, making it one of the most expansive group referrals in recent months. Bayoumi’s referral follows over 15 months of detention in a legal process that has drawn strong criticism within the journalistic community.
Bayoumi was arrested from his home on 16 September 2024, and remained forcibly disappeared for 47 days before appearing before the State Security Prosecution, without any official disclosure of the reasons for his arrest or his place of detention. During this period, he was denied access to legal counsel and family contact, in clear violation of constitutional guarantees that require prompt judicial review and legal safeguards.
He has since been held in pretrial detention for an extended period, part of a broader pattern in freedom of expression cases where pretrial detention is used punitively, contrary to its intended exceptional use to safeguard investigations.
The Emergency State Security Court is an exceptional tribunal whose rulings cannot be appealed through normal judicial channels. Instead, verdicts are referred to the president for ratification, amendment, or cancellation. This raises serious concerns about judicial independence and the right to a fair trial, particularly in politically sensitive or expression-related cases, where defendants are denied appeal rights and meaningful legal review.
Charges in these cases are often vaguely worded—such as “membership” and “financing”, with no detailed acts or clear evidence presented. This opens the door to the criminalisation of peaceful journalism and the targeting of professional work under broad national security justifications.
The referral of a journalist to a terrorism court continues the trend of conflating journalism with threats to national security, ignoring the crucial distinction between legitimate journalistic critique and unlawful activity. This approach expands the use of emergency laws to stifle free expression, sending a chilling message to media workers and undermining the public’s right to information.
It also reflects a persistent pattern of prosecutions targeting journalists and cartoonists, often using similar charges and trials before exceptional courts, further narrowing the space for peaceful dissent and public discourse.
Egypt’s constitution and international obligations require the protection of press freedom, and prohibit detention for expressing opinions or professional conduct. They also demand fair trial guarantees, including prohibition of enforced disappearance, the right to legal defence, public hearings, and the right to appeal.
Yet, repeated incidents in opinion-related cases highlight a growing gap between legal commitments and actual practice.
This case raises renewed questions about the future of freedom of expression in Egypt, the permissible boundaries of journalistic work, and the urgent need to abolish exceptional courts and end the use of terrorism charges against peaceful expression, ensuring respect for fundamental rights and restoring the rule of law.
