The arrest of construction magnate Hisham Talaat Moustafa has a number of implications that go beyond the murder of Lebanese singer Suzanne Tamim, whom Moustafa is charged with conspiring to kill. The accused is not just a prominent businessman, but also an extremely wealthy man who is part of the circles of power and influence in the country.
It is only natural his involvement in this heinous crime would raise controversy for several months, especially because the state is committed to the rule of law. This controversy goes beyond the borders of Egypt, not only because the crime was committed in Dubai, but also because it is an important issue for those who want to try to understand the complexities of the current situation in Egypt.
There are three vital facets that may contribute to revealing part of the mystery that surrounds this case.
The first is that the power-wealth marriage per se is not enough to automatically guarantee protection to any wealthy person no matter how great his fortune. It is an interest-based relationship. Being associated with individuals, the interest-based relationship does not depend solely on any of them.
The strength of the relationship between wealth and the State is therefore not sufficient to protect the wealthy man if he commits an crime of that magnitude.
If there is a “rule governing the relationship between power and wealth in Egypt today, it is an extension of the way the regime treated corruption cases before the involvement of big businessmen in the regime. But the referral to court of some corruption cases to the exclusion of others raises the question: Why this or that issue specifically?
The answer is that there is no selection. Rather, this is linked to the ability of the corrupt to cover their tracks. Therefore some of them were taken to court when it became too difficult to cover them up.
The regime was not ready to protect those who cannot cover their own tracks. It is also not ready to protect one of the money barons who have been associated with it because he has committed an abominable crime, which involves implicates parties, both at home and abroad.
However, as so many conspiratorial interpretations emerged in what appeared to be a selective attitude in dealing with corruption cases, now conspiracy theories are being promoted in an attempt to answer a question that puzzled many people: Has the regime abandoned Hisham Talaat Moustafa, and why?
The second implication is associated with the State’s partiality to wealthy businessmen. This attitude has spoilt many of them, with negative repercussions on society.
Some of these businessmen have become victims to this overprotection, due to an increased perception that the authoritarian influence which they acquired, coupled with their exorbitant wealth, allows them to do anything.
They earn billions easily, amazingly and even effortlessly. That is why some of them have started to feel that everything is easy and that they are beyond reproach or accountability for crimes they commit and that their marriage with the authorities provides them with exhaustive protection covering, not only their business, financial and banking activities, but also their cheap whims.
The third implication of this issue is that the Egyptian regime, in trivializing the inherent dangers of this attitude, has shot itself in the foot. The excessive underestimation of such dangers leads, in its climax, to practices that hasten the regime’s collapse.
However, the strict legal treatment with Moustafa’s crime indicates that the ruling regime’s underestimation of dangers has not reached this climax and that its protection of its henchmen has limits.
But it remains uncertain whether this heinous crime of which Moustafa is charged would alert the regime’s pillars to the necessity of reassessing its close relationship with the people of wealth and business.
Dr Waheed Abdel Meguidis an expert at Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
