Last month, the general prosecutor issued a ban on the publication of an ongoing investigation conducted by the Central Auditing Organization (CAO) on corruption. The ban silenced all media outlets and triggered numerous speculations about the degree of the corruption and the liability of the CAO’s director.
In 2015, 14 publication bans were issued on several public opinion cases in addition to a more recent ban on addressing government corruption.
Last month, the general prosecutor issued a ban on the publication of an ongoing investigation conducted by the Central Auditing Organization (CAO) on corruption. The ban silenced all media outlets and triggered numerous speculations about the degree of the corruption and the liability of the CAO’s director.
In 2015, 14 publication bans were issued on several public opinion cases in addition to a more recent ban on addressing government corruption.
Two significant reports on government corruption in Egypt were issued. The first report was conducted by the CAO in cooperation with the United Nations on the accounts of government corruption while the other report was released 14 days later, investigating the findings of the first.
CAO director Hisham Geneina previously told Egyptian media that government corruption between 2012 and 2015 cost Egypt 600 billion Egyptian pounds (around US $68 billion) based on the findings of a study requested by the Ministry of Planning and conducted by the CAO. However, on December 24, the CAO released a statement saying the statements of Geneina were inaccurate.
The fact-finding committee, which was formed by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and headed by chairman of the administrative control to investigate the matter, announced that the size and value of corruption were inaccurate and that Geneina’s statements deeply affected the government’s efforts to attract foreign investments.
Due to his statements, the Court of Urgent Matters in Alexandria will issue its verdict on 29 March about whether or not Geneina will be sacked from his position to protect national security. The case is based on a copy of the fact-finding committee’s report in addition to the presidential decree on the right to remove the heads of oversight from their positions if they pose a proven threat to national security. However, according to the Constitution, Geneina may remain as CAO director until September 2016.
Ban expansion
Addressing corruption is now banned since general prosecutor Nabil Sadeq issued a decision on 20 January, banning the publication of the investigations of case no. 75 for the year 2016. Article 187 of the Egyptian Penal Code allows banning publications and imposes a penalty of not more than six-months imprisonment in addition to a fine of EGP 5,000 (around US $560) when obstruction of justice is proven. Nevertheless, the media is not meant to serve as an investigative panel which would influence judicial decisions or judgments.
Khalid Belshi, head of the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate’s freedoms committee, said publication ban decisions have been increasing since the 14 decisions issued last year banning the publication of public opinion cases. Such decisions, he added, were unjustified except for the banning decision related to the murder of Shaima Sbbagh on 24 January 2015 (when she was carrying roses at the Socialist Popular Alliance Party’s march to Tahrir Square) as, due to conflicted reports over the incident, the prosecution decided in February 2015 to ban the publication of the case. However, the Court of Cassation recently re-trialed the accused security officer after the abolition of his imprisonment sentence and sentenced him to 15 years in prison for her murder.
Triggering speculations
A ban was issued on publishing the investigations against former Agriculture Minister Salah Hilal on bribe accusations in August 2015. “I do not question the prosecution. However, these constraints reveal a desire to conceal the truth about such matters,” Belshi said. “The ban relates to public opinion issues. It is better to reveal the truth than open the door to the people’s speculations.”
Belshi also called upon passing a law that openly defines the reasons for the ban with no constraints. “It is confusing how the publication of issues affecting personal reputation is not banned despite the fact that protecting the personal life of a citizen is a priority,” he underlined.
Undermining public awareness
The Supreme Administrative Court recently issued the grounds for revoking the publication ban issued on 14 October 2014 in case no. 654 for the year 2014 related to the falsification of the Egyptian presidential elections in 2012 between former President Mohamed Morsi and former candidate Ahmed Shafiq.
As stated in the court’s report, “Any restriction to the right of citizens and media to access correct information and accurate news without legal justification based on public interest is a violation of the Constitution.” The court also believes that “absence of truthful facts leads to the speculation of the media which would publish misleading information that affects its credibility and, in turn, increase ignorance and undermine public awareness. It would also strip the media of its positive role in defending the rights and freedoms of the citizens.” Belshi believes that this verdict is a firm stand in the face of the widespread publication bans.
The Egyptian parliament previously decided to form a fact-finding committee to investigate the corruption accounts and study the aforementioned reports. However, during the parliament session on 7 February, Parliament Speaker Ali Abdulal requested postponing the formation of this committee in accordance with the ban. The parliament members denied his request, but the committee has not been formed yet.
Article 68 of the Constitution provides that official documents belong to the people and that it is the government’s obligation to disclose them with transparency. Additionally, Article 217 also stipulates that independent fact-finding committee reports must be published for public opinion. On 19 April, the Administrative Court will consider revoking the publication ban decision on the corruption report. However, the truth remains concealed until the date of this awaited session.
