The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights warns against the marginalization of the Rule Law and the normal judiciary

 The High Emergency State Security Court approved the decision of the Ministry of Interior to administratively detain a number of defendants who transferred great sums of money from Egyptian banks to banks in Europe. The court referred to these persons as dangerous to the economic security of the country, and described an administrative detention order as a procedure which is used when it is necessary to protect the interests of the public.  So long as it is not misused, it is justifiable.  

EOHR realizes that the critical aspect of these kinds of cases is that they relate to the economic and social rights of citizens – in particular, vulnerable groups in society.  EOHR affirms that the criminal law and the normal judiciary are sufficient for punishing those who are accused of crimes.  EOHR also reaffirms its condemnation of exceptional judicial proceedings and the expanded use of administrative detention by the Ministry of Interior under the Emergency Law.  Moreover, it is deeply concerned for the effect exceptional courts and expanded detention powers of security bodies has on the rule of law and the normal judiciary.  It is also concerned about the continued use of the “war on terrorism” as a rationale for the continuation of the Emergency Law.  Paradoxically, while the Egyptian government’s justification of the extension of the state of emergency is based on only one reason – that is, combating terrorism - it is now trying to add new justifications for its extension: namely, the protection of economic security.   

EOHR is concerned about the ruling of the Emergency State Security Court which justified administrative detention as a legitimate tool for combating what has been termed the “economic security” of the country.  It also warns against the continuation of the marginalization of law and the normal judicial process.  EOHR believes that the achievement of economic security requires full participation in public affairs, democratic reform, and transparency, all of which are in conflict with the exceptional procedures imposed under the Emergency Law.