CAIRO: Two court cases involving Al-Dostour editor Ibrahim Eissa were again adjourned on Sunday and Saturday.
On Saturday the Agouza misdemeanors court agreed to the defense’s request that a committee of three media experts be formed to examine whether articles published last year had negatively affected national stability.
The case against editors Adel Hamouda, Ibrahim Eissa, Wael El-Ebrashy and Abdel Halim Qandil was brought last year by lawyer Ibrahim Rabie Abdel Rassoul, a member of the ruling National Democratic Party.
In September 2007, the editors were found guilty of publishing articles which infringed Article 188 of the Penal Code.
Article 188 criminalizes “publishing false information of a nature to disturb public order or security and were sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of LE 20,000.
The committee, composed of Al-Ahram’s Amr Hashem Rabie, university professor Awatef Abdel Rahman and head of the Journalists’ Syndicate Makram Mohamed Ahmed will examine newspapers published at the time and give their opinion as to whether the articles published affected national security.
Defense lawyer Mohamed El Damaty questioned the basis of Article 188 of the Penal Code, under which the charges are being brought.
“The provisions of Article 188 are themselves unclear and vague, which makes it extremely difficult to determine whether what was published affected national security.
Kamal Labidi from the Committee for the Protection of Journalists condemned the case against the four editors.
“This case should never have been brought and accepted, he said.
“Those who filed the case should have responded to the content of the articles through the media, rather than filing charges. This is a farce designed to harass journalists and narrow the margin of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Egypt.
The next hearing in the appeal will be on June 21, 2008.
Today’s highly-charged hearing in the Abbasseya appeals court witnessed confrontations between police and protestors from the April 6 movement protesting the continued detention of individuals arrested in connection with the general strike called for by opposition groups in early April of this year.Some 30 demonstrators held up placards and chanted slogans in support of Eissa in the court’s main lobby.
Violence erupted at the entrance of the courtroom when members of court security attempted to prevent protestors from entering the courtroom, and in the process stopped members of the defense team from going inside, resulting in physical altercations between lawyers and the police.
Defense lawyer Essam Sultan emphasized that at an earlier stage of the case even prosecution witnesses had testified that they were unable to say conclusively that articles concerning the health of President Hosni Mubarak last year in Al-Dostour had had a perceptible affect on the Egyptian economy, as is alleged by the prosecution.
Sultan emphasized that it is necessary to distinguish between publishing news and commenting on news, and between publishing facts already known to the public and publishing facts unknown to them – as he said lawyer and Parliament head Fathi Sorour had made clear in a commentary on the Press Law.
Sultan stressed that the right to information is the essence of journalism, as stated in the Press Law.
He made reference to an article published recently in the state-run Al Akhbar regarding a LE 65 customs charge which the paper claimed President Mubarak had recently paid for a gift of dates sent to him by a Saudi prince.
He pointed out that this news report was subsequently repudiated in an article published in another state-owned paper, Akhbar Al Youm, which questioned why a two kilogram gift of dates would be sent by a Saudi prince, and why it would be sent through these channels.
Sultan called for the formation of a committee of media experts to examine whether the articles published in El-Dostour had violated journalistic codes of ethics.
Prosecutor Mohamed Faisal defended the article under which the charges were brought, saying that under the article in question it is not necessary to establish that harm has actually been caused by the publication of false news but rather that there was a risk of such damage occurring.
He also rejected the defence argument that a committee should be formed to examine whether the articles in question amounted to the publication of news, or were a comment on news already in the public domain.
The articles clearly published news rather than commenting on already published news.This is clear from the fact both that the rumors concerning the president s health were published three or four times, and from the style used in the articles, Faisal said.
He emphasized that it is the duty of journalists to check the veracity of facts before publishing articles.
Defence lawyer Mohsen El Bahnassy attempted to argue that the fact the charges were brought by a state security prosecution office affected the case s probity.
This was roundly rejected by the presiding judge, who retorted that the state security public prosecution office is a legitimate part of the Egyptian judicial structure.
Lawyer Samir El Sheshtawy – who is bringing a civil claim against Eissa, and is accused of settling political scores on behalf of the ruling National Democratic Party – was again in court with his two sons.
On this occasion he also brought a private cameraman who filmed him before, during and after the court hearing.
During the last appeal hearing El-Sheshtawy had requested that his children be allowed to testify in court in support of his claim that they had been disturbed by the articles published in Al-Dostour.
Today he demanded that Eissa print an apology to Mubarak for the articles published.
I am a patriot and I love my country and my case against Eissa is also brought out of love for him. He must publish a retraction of what he published and apologize to President Mubarak as well as first lady Suzanne Mubarak,
After a short recess, the court accepted two of the defence s three demands.
In addition to the formation of a committee of media experts, the defence team also requested that the court be presented with the preparatory papers produced while Article 188 was being drafted.
Sultan explained that the article is based on a previous law produced in 1914 (during the British occupation). He said that an examination of the preparatory papers would demonstrate the law on which Article 188 is based was a product of the conditions existing under the British occupation.
He explained that it was intended specifically to address political treason and was not meant to be used in cases of the type raised against Eissa.
However the court rejected the defence s request that the state security officer Mohamed Barghesh, who originally brought the charges against Eissa give testimony.
The appeal continues on the June 22, 2008.
