In an era of accelerating repression in Egypt and a shrinking civic space, we must ask again why the state is intent on criminalising the right to protest and what the consequences are for those who exercise their right to peaceful expression and assembly. This text re-examines the relationship between constitutional texts and daily security practices, deconstructing the mechanisms that turn guaranteed rights into opportunities for repression and impunity.
The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of demonstration is not only an extension of human rights, as enshrined in international conventions, but also a prerequisite for real political life and civic spaces in which citizens can express themselves, participate and be held accountable. These rights are the gateway to democratic participation and the most important safeguard against the monopolisation of power.
Not only has the state neglected this right, it has also worked to redefine it legally in a way that renders it meaningless, using legislation, security forces, and the judiciary as integrated tools to criminalise civil action. Demonstrations are no longer considered legitimate acts, but are viewed as threats requiring deterrence and control. Instead of regulating this right, Law 107 of 2013[1] is being used to undermine it and turn its practitioners into defendants.
This shift cannot be comprehended in isolation from the state’s approach to dealing with protests, a mindset that perceives
Every mass movement is a harbinger of danger, and every independent voice is an act of rebellion. The ongoing obsession and deep-seated fear of popular mobility is evident in the authority’s legal texts and security practices, producing a legislative environment that criminalises peaceful movements. This environment seeks to remove any independent political content from public spaces.
In this context, the discussion of the right to protest transcends a mere legal debate. It becomes an essential entry point for understanding the essence of the political crisis in Egypt, where the state confiscates the tools of public expression, subjecting political practice to the logic of control and policing rather than negotiation and participation. This approach reflects an authoritarian vision that views pluralism as a threat and popular demands as a potential danger requiring containment and restriction rather than interaction and response.
I: Utilising Law as a Tool for Political Criminalisation
The criminalisation of demonstrations cannot be considered a mere legal measure; rather, it must be regarded as a key component of a broader project aimed at reshaping the relationship between the state and society. The state has implemented a restrictive legislative system, primarily characterised by the Protest Law, with the objective of exerting control over public space and effecting its complete purging of any political content, irrespective of its particular orientation/s.
Under this scheme, constitutional rights are repurposed from inherent entitlements to exceptional grants subject to the approval of the authority. Prior notification, which is supposed to be a regulatory measure, becomes a de facto licensing mechanism, and peaceful assembly, which is constitutionally and legally guaranteed, becomes a punishable offence. This legislation does not aim to regulate the practice of protest, but rather besieges it with burdensome conditions that render it meaningless and ineffective.
The dilemma here extends beyond mere legislative deficiencies to reflect a political vision that seeks to monopolise the definition and framing of the public interest. The state, which also combines the status of both adversary and arbiter, gives itself the authority to determine whether or not a protest is legitimate and whether political expression is compatible with its concept of public order. In the absence of objective and transparent criteria, all forms of civil protest become suspect, and the exercise of civil rights becomes a security threat that must be confronted.
Legal and Legislative Framework for the Right to Peaceful Assembly and Freedom of Demonstration in Egypt
- The 2014 Constitution
Egypt’s legal and legislative framework governing space and freedom of peaceful assembly is founded on a combination of constitutional texts and regulatory laws. The 2014 Constitution, amended in 2019, is the supreme legal document in the country. Article 73 stipulates that “Citizens have the right to organise public meetings, processions and peaceful demonstrations, without carrying weapons of any kind, with notification as regulated by law. Private peaceful assembly is guaranteed, without the necessity of prior notification, and security personnel may not attend or eavesdrop on it.” While this article recognises the right to peaceful assembly, it links the exercise of this right in the public sphere to ‘notification as regulated by law’, which opens the door to legal interpretations and restrictions that may severely limit this right.
Article 75 of the Constitution also guarantees the freedom to form associations and civil institutions on a democratic basis, and establishes their legal personality upon notification. Article 75 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to form NGOs and institutions on a democratic basis and establishes their legal personality upon notification. However, Law No. 149 of 2019 imposes significant restrictions and challenges on the work of NGOs, raising questions about the law’s compliance with the letter and spirit of the constitution.
Moreover, other provisions in the constitution related to freedom of opinion and expression (Article 65), freedom of the press and media (Articles 70 and 71), and the right to privacy (Article 57) are closely related to the ability of civil society to operate freely and effectively. However, the general legal framework and practice often undermine these constitutional guarantees.
- Regulating Right to Public Meetings, Processions and Peaceful Demonstrations (Protest Law)
Law No. 107 of 2013, known popularly as the ‘Protest Law,’ was issued to regulate the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly. This law has sparked widespread controversy and international and local human rights criticisms since its promulgation, due to its severe restrictions. It requires a written notification to be submitted to the police station or district in which the public meeting, procession, or demonstration is located, at least three working days before it begins. This notification must include specific information about the place and time of the gathering, its subject matter, and its slogans. More importantly, the law grants the Minister of Interior or the competent security director the power to prevent, postpone, move, or reroute the meeting, procession, or demonstration if it is deemed to ‘disturb security or public order’ – terms that are broadly defined and open to broad interpretation. In 2017, the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that Article 10 of the Protest Law, which had granted the Minister of Interior the power to ban demonstrations without reference to the judiciary, was unconstitutional. Despite this judgment, security authorities continue to exercise broad powers to prevent and suppress demonstrations, raising questions about the effectiveness of these amendments in protecting constitutional rights
It also imposes severe penalties for violating its provisions, including imprisonment and fines. It has been widely used to criminalise peaceful gatherings and prosecute activists and participants, leading to a significant reduction in the space for expression and assembly in the public sphere.
● Law No. 149 of 2019 in Egypt, titled “Regulating the Exercise of Civil Work,”
Law No. 149 of 2019 replaced Law No. 70 of 2017, which was heavily scrutinised for restricting the work of civil society organisations (CSOs). It deals primarily with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations. While the new law has repealed some of the more restrictive provisions of its predecessor, it still contains many restrictions that hinder the independence and freedom of action of NGOs. Procedures for registration are still complex and subject to the discretion of administrative authorities. The Law also imposes significant restrictions on the receipt of foreign funding, requiring prior approval from the administrative authority, and the request can sometimes be rejected without giving clear reasons. Organisations are subject to extensive oversight by the administrative body, which has broad powers to interfere in their internal affairs and, in some cases, to dissolve them.
Several human rights organisations have criticised this law for not conforming to international human rights standards on freedom of association, and for entrenching state control over civil society rather than empowering it.
● Other Relevant & Influential Legislations
In addition to the laws listed above, there are several other laws that directly or indirectly affect civic space and freedom of peaceful assembly. Among them is the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 94 of 2015, which incorporates broad definitions of terrorism and terrorist offences, allowing it to be used to prosecute peaceful activists and human rights defenders. The Penal Code also contains articles related to ‘insulting institutions’ or ‘spreading false news’, which are sometimes used to restrict freedom of expression and criticism. If a state of emergency is in effect, the Emergency Law grants the authorities broad exceptional powers that significantly restrict rights and freedoms.
The current Egyptian legal framework raises serious questions about its compatibility and conformity with Egypt’s international obligations under the international human rights treaties and covenants it has ratified, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Article 21 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, and no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Similarly, Article 10 of the African Charter guarantees the right to freedom of association, while Article 11 guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
Several human rights reports indicate that the restrictions imposed in Egyptian legislation go beyond what is permissible and acceptable under international law, and do not meet the requirement of “necessity” in a democratic society. The harsh penalties imposed for exercising these rights are also considered disproportionate.
II: Practice as a Mechanism of Collective Deterrence
On the practical level, restrictive legal provisions are translated into extremely harsh and violent security practices. Arbitrary arrests, the dispersal of peaceful gatherings using excessive force, the phenomenon of judicial rotation (re-imprisoning those released on new cases), and organised media smear campaigns all form an integrated system aimed at instilling fear into the social fabric. The signal sent by these practices is clear and unambiguous: The mere thought of exercising the right to protest may cost a citizen his freedom, his livelihood, or even his physical safety.
In this regard, the security services go beyond their supposed executive role to become a direct political actor, acting not as a law enforcement agency, but as a party that imposes its vision and will through mechanisms of repression and intimidation. In parallel, justice institutions, led by prosecutors, become platforms for legitimising practices of enforced disappearance and prolonged pretrial detention, under broad pretexts such as maintaining national security and combating terrorism.
This excessive and systematic use of the state’s coercive powers undermines the principle of the rule of law. Also, it establishes a permanent state of exception in which exceptional violations become the rule and legal safeguards the exception. Deterrence is thus transformed from a limited measure directed against specific offenders to a collective mechanism targeting the entire society, seeking to bend its collective will and reshape its consciousness in line with the authority’s vision.
Security Challenges and the Utilisation of the Judiciary as a Tool of Repression
The current legal framework constitutes a significant challenge. The protest law, with its rigid conditions and broad powers granted to the security services, severely restricts the right to peaceful assembly. Similarly, the NGO law, with its complex procedures, funding restrictions, and extensive oversight, creates a repressive environment for independent civil society work. These laws, in addition to the arbitrary use of other laws such as the Anti-Terrorism Law, contribute to creating a climate of fear and hesitation for activists and civil society organisations. While some legal safeguards are in place, practices on the ground are often more restrictive.
People in Egypt are paying a high cost with their lives and freedom for exercising their constitutional right to demonstrate and assemble peacefully. Many human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have documented the excessive and unnecessary use of force by Egyptian security forces to disperse peaceful demonstrations. This has included the heavy use of tear gas, pellets, and, in some cases, live ammunition, resulting in the death and injury of many protesters. Human Rights Watch (2019) stated that the security services have “repeatedly resorted to brute force to crush peaceful demonstrations. Activist Shaimaa al-Sabbagh, a member of the Socialist Popular Alliance Party, was shot dead on 24 January 2015 while participating in a small, silent flower-laying march in Tahrir Square to commemorate the martyrs of the 25th Revolution. The march, despite its clearly peaceful nature, was forcibly dispersed by security forces. That incident sparked widespread outrage, and although a police officer was initially convicted of ‘beating resulting in death’, he was later acquitted on the appeal stage, reinforcing the sense of impunity for the use of excessive force.
Security practices are considered the biggest challenge to civic space, and peaceful gatherings, even those with approvals, are often dealt with repressively by security forces. This involves excessive use of force, arbitrary arrests, and prosecutions of participants. The Egyptian authorities are shutting down any calls for gatherings to commemorate the 25 January Revolution, and are escalating random arrests of individuals ahead of the anniversary. Over the past years, arrest campaigns have continued in multiple contexts, targeting different currents and orientations, with security forces pursuing students, workers, activists, and ordinary individuals alike.
In a striking example, following calls for demonstrations on 11 November in what was known as the ‘Climate Revolution’, which coincided with the climate conference to be held in Egypt in November 2022, security forces arrested dozens of citizens from their homes. They were interrogated by the State Security Prosecution, which ordered their pretrial detention for periods starting from six months, and in some cases exceeding two years.
On 23 April 2024, a group of female activists organised a peaceful protest in front of the UN Women’s regional office in al-Ma’adi, Cairo, to convey their solidarity with women in Palestine and Sudan, and to demand an immediate end to the aggression on Gaza and the war in Sudan. During the event, Egyptian security forces dispersed the gathering and arrested at least 16 people, including prominent journalists and activists such as Rajia Omran, Mahienour El-Masry, Rasha Azab, and Eman Auf, as well as journalists Youssef Shaaban and Mohamed Farag. The State Security Prosecution charged them with gathering and joining a group established in violation of the law in Case No. 1567 of 2024. The next day, the Supreme State Security Prosecution decided to release all detainees on bail ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 Egyptian pounds, while others were released on the guarantee of their place of residence.
There was also a massive arrest campaign during the 20 September 2019 and 2020 protests, with security forces arresting around 4,000 citizens indiscriminately, according to reports by human rights organisations. The machine of oppression was not limited to random arrests from the streets, but extended to human rights lawyers, journalists, and human rights defenders, including those providing support to political detainees. Human rights lawyer Mohamed El-Baqer, lawyer Mahienour El-Masry, journalist Esraa Abdel Fattah, Mohamed Salah, Solafa Magdy, and others have been targeted in the aftermath of these protests. More recently, security forces arrested a number of protesters who came out to express their rejection of the genocide committed by the occupation in the Gaza Strip and in support of Palestine, and charged them with joining a terrorist group, spreading false news, and participating in a gathering that threatens public peace and security. These security practices have contributed to creating a state of fear and anxiety, restricting citizens’ ability to exercise their right to freedom of expression and assembly.
Moreover, the lack of independence of the judiciary and its utilization as a tool in the hands of the authorities to suppress individuals, ranging from not accepting appeals against protest bans to issuing harsh prison sentences of up to years for peaceful protesters, activists and human rights defenders, after unfair trials devoid of all legal guarantees, deepening the crisis of trust in the justice system.
Egypt’s Supreme State Security Prosecution (SSSP) and terrorism courts have provided legal cover for abuses and illegal practices carried out by security services against citizens and peaceful protesters. Since 2018, the SSSP has been responsible for investigating all cases related to demonstrations and peaceful gatherings. It has issued pre-trial detention orders against protesters without sufficient legal cause. According to the testimonies of several detainees, State Security Prosecution members used threats and intimidation against protesters appearing before them for investigation, forcing them to confess, particularly young protesters. Case No. 488 of 2019 is one example of a recurring pattern of violations. Several young people were interrogated after being arrested for participating in a demonstration following the Egypt Station fire. The case included children under the age of 18, as well as several young people. Prosecutors threatened them with torture and defamation to force confessions.
Similarly, the defendants in Case No. 277 of 2019 were arrested for inciting demonstrations to mark the anniversary of 25 January 2019. Following their arrest, they were subjected to a series of violations, including enforced disappearance and torture. The public prosecution exerted direct pressure on the defendants and interrogated several of them in the absence of legal representation, in clear violation of legal safeguards. Although more than six years have passed, many of the defendants remain in detention.
In case No. 1739 of 2019, many anti-government activists were arrested amid spontaneous protests following the Ramses train accident (on 27 February 2019, where at least twenty-five people were killed and forty were injured). Those detained included the activists Khaled Bassiouni and Malak Al[2] -Kashef, who is transgender. The most notable violation at the time was Malak’s placement in solitary confinement in the Zira’a ward of Tora Prison due to the lack of official recognition of her gender identity; her identification papers still show her as ‘male’. This sparked widespread criticism of the treatment of transgender people in places of detention from human rights organisations.
According to various human rights organisations, the protests of 20 September 2019 were the most prominent event in the history of the Supreme State Security Prosecution (SSSP). The SSSP opened intensive investigations against thousands of citizens for their participation in the protests between 22 and 30 September. The defendants were divided into several cases, the most notable of which was Case No. 1883 of 2019. In this case, 2,097 citizens, including women, children, patients, and the elderly, were remanded in custody for periods ranging from two months to three years. This followed a call by the artist Mohamed Ali for demonstrations on 20 September across various governorates. Security forces launched random arrest campaigns against protesters and bystanders alike.
Additionally, over the past seven years, the State Security Prosecution has employed the so-called ‘rotation policy’, whereby individuals are investigated again on the same charges as soon as their detention expires, with the intention of detaining them for as long as possible. Many activists, human rights defenders, and lawyers have been subjected to this policy in multiple cases.
At the same time, terrorism chambers courts also renewed the detention of thousands of protesters for periods exceeding the legally permissible maximum for pre-trial detention and issued harsh sentences that lack justice and basic legal safeguards. On 15 January 2023, the Terrorism Criminal Court, acting as an emergency state security court, issued life, 15-year, 10-year, and 5-year prison sentences to 103 defendants, including children, in the case known as the Joker case. This was for their participation in the 20 September 2019 protests in Suez. They remain in prison to this day, and a number of them have been subjected to rotation pending new cases after serving their sentences.
III: Long-term Political and Humanitarian Impact
The repercussions of criminalising protest have an impact that extends beyond individual violations to affect the structure of the entire public sphere. As restrictions and repressive practices accumulate, citizens gradually lose their sense of political efficacy, transforming from decision-makers to mere spectators of a political scene managed from above, with no real channels of participation or effective accountability mechanisms. Paradoxically, when voices are silenced and collective action is blocked, the state itself becomes more fragile and unstable, despite outward appearances of power and control.
Security methods that criminalise protest as the only solution do not address the root causes of social tensions; rather, they postpone and exacerbate them. Such policies accumulate frustration and anger, deprive society of the safety valves provided by peaceful expression, and undermine political legitimacy. As the gap between authority and society widens as a result of ongoing repression, people become increasingly alienated from and detached from state institutions, creating a vicious cycle of growing estrangement.
On a humanitarian level, the consequences of criminalising protest are reflected in the fate of the thousands of individuals arrested or prosecuted simply for expressing their views. They are deprived not only of their freedom but also of future opportunities and are subjected to systematic media demonisation and policies of social and economic exclusion. The situation worsens when repression extends to lawyers defending protesters’ rights or when journalists are penalised for reporting the truth, further undermining fundamental freedoms and silencing independent voices.
IV: Civil Society Organisations in Egypt:
Egypt’s civil society organisations encounter considerable challenges and obstacles in obtaining the licences required to carry out their activities. They are caught in a complex, tangled web of bureaucratic (and red tape) procedures that consume their resources and disrupt the flow of their work. This is compounded by restrictions on receiving funding, particularly from foreign sources, which limit their ability to survive and expand their activities. The challenges escalate further to include widespread security harassment, including the arrest of leaders and staff of these NGOs. This has resulted in the closure of two prominent human rights organisations: the Adalah Centre for Rights and Freedoms following the arrest of its executive director, Mohamed El-Baqer, in connection with the events of 20 September; and the Egyptian Coordination for Rights and Freedoms following the arrest of its director, Ezzat Ghoneim, and its members, the lawyers Hoda Abdel Moneim and Mohamed Abu Huraira. Furthermore, employees of other organisations, particularly lawyers representing victims of human rights violations, are subjected to ongoing harassment, including frequent summonses for informal interrogation by the National Security Agency (NSA).
Conclusion
It is imperative to analyse legal restrictions on freedom of protest and peaceful assembly in the context of the broader restrictions on public freedoms in Egypt in recent years. These restrictions form part of a comprehensive system of legislation and practices that are intended to restrict the public sphere and increase control over civil society and the political opposition. This has had the effect of weakening the mechanisms for popular participation in decision-making and reducing opportunities for the peaceful expression of grievances and demands, with the result that social and political tensions are increasing.
Since the Protest Law was enacted in November 2013, there has been a sharp decline in opportunities for public expression and peaceful protest. In practice, what is supposed to be a ‘notification’ system has turned into a strict ‘licensing’ system, with security agencies having broad discretion to prevent any demonstration or gathering they dislike. The harsh penalties imposed by the law, including prison sentences of several years, have created a strong deterrent effect, discouraging citizens from exercising their right to express their opinions and demands collectively.
The state’s use of heavy-handed security practices (namely dispersing demonstrations with excessive force, making mass arrests of participants, and carrying out widespread prosecutions) has fostered a climate of fear and intimidation that prevents people from exercising this fundamental right. The lack of effective accountability for violations of protesters’ rights, including extrajudicial killings, as well as the continued overreach of security services, has perpetuated a culture of impunity and encouraged the continuation of these practices.
