clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

The controversy surrounding Egypt’s military immunity law

July 6, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Egyptian police arrest a child in Cairo, Egypt, 2 June 2017 [Tareq al-Gabas/Apaimages]

A lot of controversy is stirring in Egypt since news broke about a new law approved in principle by parliament. This law grants immunity to some former military leaders and gives them the benefits and privileges of ministers; the State President is also given the right to add any other allowances. In addition to exempting these office holders from any legal accountability for the acts they committed during the period when the Constitution was suspended — the period following 3 July 2013 — they have also been granted protection on an international level by providing those who travel outside of the country with the diplomatic immunity usually provided to the heads and members of diplomatic missions abroad.

The law came as a surprise, and was not preceded by any indications, discussions or dialogue at any political or parliamentary level, or even in the media. Instead, it appeared suddenly and was passed quickly. It took barely two days for it to come before parliament and be approved, raising several questions as to why.

Mohamed Anwar Sadat, MP, the head of the Reform and Development Party, issued a statement containing a number of questions, all of which are being asked in Egypt now. What are the reasons for passing such a law, for example, and are there current or possible future concerns that called for it to be passed with such speed? Sadat stressed that the questions he is asking do not carry any type of doubt about, or disregard for, the great role played by the Armed Forces and police, which still protect the security and stability of the country. Instead, he insisted, they are just questions requiring clarification in order for the public not to be confused and fall prey to rumours.

Egypt: The coup began on the day Mubarak stepped down

The questions included the identity of the commanders covered by the law, because it leaves this loose and unspecific. Only the President can name the commanders covered, apparently. Sadat also asked why the law did not cover junior officers who participated in the same incidents, as well as the officers and soldiers. Why does the law only cover some commanders? He also asked why the law was limited to army commanders and did not include police commanders and officers who participated in the events, even though they are more deserving of immunity, protection and honouring if, indeed, the law is a type of honouring, as is claimed.

The truth is, the appearance of this law in such a manner has harmed the political system and I do not know whose idea it was exactly, but I think that they wanted to flatter the President, so they got involved in spreading gossip. The matter of granting military commanders ministerial allowances and more is not consistent with the official discourse that the state lacks funds. If the state has enough money to spend on some people, why is it being withheld from the general public? The state has even shown a miserable face and closed hand, while claiming to be poor with the economy suffering. Are these comparisons in the best interests of our military institutions, which we respect and revere, without any contrived “honouring”? Or is it detrimental to the institution and drives a wedge between it and the people needlessly and senselessly?

Furthermore, the urgency in bringing out a law that exempts army leaders from legal accountability is strange, because laws are not put in place indefinitely and will inevitably change. Furthermore, the power of their implementation is linked to the existing political leadership and I believe that, even without this law, the leadership already possesses many tools to provide more than enough protection to these commanders and others.

917 Egyptians sentenced to death since 2013 coup

However, after future changes in the political situation, and this is inevitably as the world never stays the same forever, it is certain that whoever comes after will change all of this, regardless of what the law is. Instead, the new leader may grow closer to the people by annulling such laws. This happened in other countries in the region, where new governments came to power and cancelled all previous laws exempting and granting immunity to leaders; they even put them on trial to gain the favour of the angry people.

Hence, such laws are temporary and go when the existing political situation changes, so their value is symbolic and simply provides an instant fix. It is better and more lasting to establish policies, procedures and relations that promote respect between the masses and the military establishment, by force of love, respect and appreciation, rather than by force of the law. This is more important and stronger than any legislation.

This article first appeared in Arabic in Arabi21 on 6 July 2018

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.