One Thursday in late May, 2015, a colleague from Akhbar Elyom called to inform me that a policeman inquired about the full name of Ahmed Naji and asked for a copy of Akhbar Al-Adab’s August 2015 issue. I said I did not know his full name and any information would only be obtained through the Department of legal Affairs. I immediately contacted Ahmed to inform him of this suspicious incident.

One Thursday in late May, 2015, a colleague from Akhbar Elyom called to inform me that a policeman inquired about the full name of Ahmed Naji and asked for a copy of Akhbar Al-Adab’s August 2015 issue. I said I did not know his full name and any information would only be obtained through the Department of legal Affairs. I immediately contacted Ahmed to inform him of this suspicious incident.

No further development on the issue took place until June 6 when I was surprised by a fax sent from the Journalists Union to our organization, notifying Ahmed and me to appear before the public prosecutor on June 10 for an investigation on the background of an article containing indecent statements allegedly offending public decency. I went on that date and the investigation lasted for over 90 minutes. Then, I stayed at the prosecution headquarters for over three hours until a resolution was issued. Eventually, I was discharged.

During the investigations, I explained the difference between a literary text and an article or a book and that we could not consider an imaginary literary text the way we would an essay or get confused between a fictional hero and an author. The interrogating prosecutor said he would charge Naji of drug use as well, since such actions were mentioned by Naji’s hero in the text.

I insisted that there is a difference between the hero and the author; it is an imaginary text rather than a realistic reflection of life. I mentioned this incident before the judge of Bulaq Abo Ela Misdemeanor Court and lawyer Nasser Amin asked it to be recorded officially in the session’s notes.

At the beginning of the interrogation, I read the report of the complainant’s statements in which he said the article affected his health and heart.

Months after the investigation, the case was filed as a misdemeanor in accordance with Articles 178 and 200 of the Penal Code. The first article, related to offending public decency, was used against Naji while the second article, stipulating that if the chief editor or his deputy fails to perform his assigned duties, the former shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment and the latter shall be fined by EGP 5,000 to 10,000, was used against me. The case was then referred to the Bulaq Abo Ela Misdemeanor Court.

At the first hearing session, the judge responded to Naji’s defense who demanded the help of a group of critics and writers to determine whether what Naji wrote is common among other texts or not? They submitted a list of 12 names of which the judge chose three, namely Gaber Asfour, Mohammed Salmawy and Sunaallah Ibrahim. At the second hearing session, Salmawy and Sunaallah attended and testified. Gaber Asfour came while the prosecution was commenting on testimonies and arguments. He applied to give testimony, but the judge suspended the hearings and said the two testimonies were sufficient.

At that hearing, Nasser Amin presented an oral speech in which he emphasized a set of legal principles including constitutional and legal texts preventing punishment. Article 67 of the 2014 Egyptian Constitution stipulates that “Freedom of artistic and literary creativity is guaranteed. The State shall encourage arts and literature, sponsor creative artists and writers and protect their productions, and provide the means necessary for achieving this end.” Article 71 of the Constitution also states that no freedom-restricting penalty shall be imposed for publications or publicity.

Having heard the pleas and testimonies, the First Instance Court issued an innocence verdict based on clear facts and refuted the commitment of any offense and confirmed that the two articles the prosecution used do not apply to us stating: “On the lawsuit subject, the public prosecution accused the two defendants of offending public decency in accordance with Articles 178 and 200 of the Penal Code which require criminal intent to offend public decency or deploy debauchery and immorality. This does not apply to the first defendant’s text, which is a literary work inspired by his imagination while the words and phrases contained were deemed indecent by the public prosecutor, came in general context of an imagined story. The sexual words and phrases included in the story are common in many old and new literary works and poems. The testimonies of Salmawy and Sunaallah, whom the court trusts, conformed that we cannot drop out a literary work from its context or take one part of it while leaving the other as, otherwise, it will collapse.

However, the prosecution appealed the verdict and at the first appeal session, the head of the court suspended the case until Naji and I were called to appear at court.

Personally, I know that we were not obliged to appear in court for the appeal. Therefore, I left it to the discretion of Naji and his lawyer who were enthusiastic, so I showed a similar attitude.

On June 20 exactly at 09:00 AM, I was five minutes away from the North Cairo Court where the hearing was being held when my colleague Sawsan Bashir called me asking about my whereabouts. I said I was at the entrance and she told me that she was inside the hall. I went in and found her sitting in the last row. When I asked her about our case, I learned it was No. 46, scheduled last at the hearing. I thought the judge would issue a verdict immediately or suspend it for a week, but since Ahmad and I were present, the first option was more likely to take place.

I entered the hall accompanied by my colleague Aisha Maraghy and we were followed by Mona Abdul Karim, Ihab el-Hadari, Ahmed Mujahid and Naji’s colleagues. Lawyer Mohammed Latif, Akhbar Elyom’s lawyer, came in earlier and discussed the case with lawyer Nasser Amin.

Two weeks earlier, Latif decided to represent me. He belongs to a legal school that does not only consider documents but also all related circumstances. Therefore, he took a decision to have the maximum fine. I was surprised by this view since I was found not guilty, but he said: “You and Ahmed both should forget such verdict. This is a new round.”

The hearing began and shortly after we were called by the bailiff. Naji and I went in with a large number of lawyers.

A few moments after the prosecution’s plea by its representative, I felt that we were in an unequal battle and perhaps the fears of Latif would turn into a reality. I tried as much as possible to speak before the court, but the judge and lawyers warned me against this. However, I spoke my mind, but at that moment neither speaking nor silence were to any avail.

The hearing lasted for over an hour and a half and was then suspended. Ahmed Mujahid requested to talk to the judge about the prosecution’s confusion between the deposit number and the role of the censorship of the Ministry of Information’s art files in addition to the question of whether Naji’s book was displayed at the exhibition or not. Indeed, Mujahid took out his card, which hand after hand reached us, and I gave it to the judge who suspended the hearing. However, the card remained at the judge’s desk, and he did not testify.

After the suspension of the hearing, we sat among our friends and waited for a long time. I felt that a sentence would be issued and I tried to prepare Ahmad. “You will be imprisoned and I will be fined 10,000 EGP,” I said and he responded, “Tariq, I will not be imprisoned.” Moments later, everything