Limited victory

Do journalists have any reason to rejoice, asks Shaden Shehab

---

On Monday, after two days of debate and a dramatic intervention by President Hosni Mubarak, parliament passed a new press law and introduced amendments related to publication offences into the penal code. President Mubarak's last-minute intervention meant that the most controversial article of the new law, stipulating custodial sentences for journalists who question the financial integrity of public officials or state employees, was dropped.

The new legislation, which still allows journalists to be jailed for some publishing offences, was greeted as a step in the right direction despite falling short of Mubarak's 2004 promise to abolish all custodial sentences.

"The changes are an achievement, but a limited one," said prominent columnist Salama Ahmed Salama.

"The new law has abolished prison sentences in 90 per cent of cases but the remaining 10 per cent are a matter of concern," said Yehia Qallash, Press Syndicate secretary. "One achievement, though, is that in most cases libel will now be punished by a fine and not imprisonment. But we will continue to demand all prison sentences be lifted."

Journalists produced their own draft legislation more than two years ago and presented it to the government, since when it has been gathering dust. The Press Syndicate had also requested that it be allowed to review the government's new legislation before it reached parliament. That request was denied.

After being rushed through the cabinet, the NDP Policies Committee, the Shura Council and parliament's Legislative Committee, the draft law was presented to the People's Assembly on Saturday night where, as anticipated, it was supported by the NDP majority in the face of vociferous opposition from Muslim Brotherhood and independent MPs.

In protest, journalists began an open sit-in on 3 July, while on Sunday 25 opposition and independent newspapers went on strike and failed to appear. The Press Syndicate, meanwhile, threatened to issue a "black list" of members of parliament planning to vote in favour of the law.

Hundreds of journalists and activists, heavily out-numbered by riot police, demonstrated for two hours outside parliament on Sunday while the law was being discussed. They carried placards with the sarcastic slogan "Viva corruption -- Down with freedom of the press".

Journalists were particularly outraged by two articles. Article 302 of the penal code makes insulting the head of a foreign state a criminal offence. Journalists criticising the US president, or the Israeli prime minister, can now be jailed. Article 303, introduced into the code, imposes prison sentences and a fine of between LE15,000 to LE40,000 for questioning the financial integrity of public officials.

Article 303 is rumoured to be the brainchild of Ahmed Ezz, the business tycoon and NDP secretary for organisational affairs. Ezz, whose companies dominate domestic iron and steel production, has been repeatedly criticised for monopolistic practices and the origins of his huge fortune questioned. Independent newspapers have alleged that he funded President Mubarak's presidential elections campaign and he is known to be close to the NDP's Policies Committee Chairman Gamal Mubarak.

"Ezz is the secretary for organisational affairs, the chief whip of the NDP, and it is natural for him to lobby for what he thinks are suitable policies," said Hossam Badrawi, a leading member of the NDP's Policies Committee.

NDP MPs were shocked when, just hours before parliament was ready to pass the new law, Minister of State for Parliamentary and Legal Affairs Mofid Shehab announced that President Mubarak had requested that prison sentences be dropped from Article 303. Their previously gung-ho attitude was quickly changed as they hailed Mubarak's "historic initiative". Ezz remained silent during the intervention, and Al-Wafd subsequently published a picture of him scowling.

While the intervention left many journalists feeling relieved -- the independent daily Al-Masri Al-Yom announced the news with the headline "Freedom of the press has won an unprecedented victory in the history of Egypt... President Mubarak has heeded the call for the right of law and for freedom" -- others were less triumphalist, arguing that the victory, if indeed it was a victory, was at best limited.

"Article 303 should be cancelled altogether... not many journalists can pay LE15,000 to LE40,000 every time they mention the financial shenanigans of officials," said leading journalist Magdi Mehanna.

And while Mubarak's initiative might prevent some journalists from being sent to prison, observers have pointed out how the last minute intervention once again underlines how the legislature plays second fiddle to the executive. It also, some argue, exposes splits within the ruling party, treating the public to the spectacle of NDP MPs strenuously lobbying for something with which the party chairman, Mubarak, opposes.

According to Badrawi, "it is natural in a democratic country that the president should canvas the different views within his party and then make a choice between them, which is what happened in this case". What some people call a split within the party, he argued, is in reality no more than the party's different wings airing their views.

For Salama the presidential intervention served only to underline "the incompetence of the legislative authority".

"Although it came at the right time it showed yet again the extent to which the country is a one-man show, and the limited role of Egypt's institutions."

Although Mubarak has remained silent throughout the dispute over the new judicial law, which has pitted judges against the regime, he has made several other high-profile interventions recently. He intervened in the case of the schoolgirl, Alaa Farag, who was told she would have to repeat the whole academic year for including anti-Bush and anti-regime comments in an Arabic exam essay. The president lifted the punishment and the girl passed. This week he also acted to make the government open the door to imports of eggs and frozen chickens, thus reducing their price in the market. Following the mass culling that was carried out in the wake of the avian flu outbreak, eggs and chickens had become so expensive as to be out of the reach of those on low incomes.

"But there are many other ways to encourage officials to take the right decisions without the president's much publicised interference," says Salama. "That makes the solutions appear as if they are a favour and not a right." (see p. 3)