CAIRO: Did Judge Al-Mohammedi Qunsua allude to the death sentence when he said the court will consult the Mufti in the Suzanne Tamim murder case? Does the publishing ban on the trial of Hisham Talaat Moustafa and Mohsen Al-Sukkari still stand?
Both local and international media outlets have attempted to answer these questions and many more since Qunsua, in a minute-long court session Thursday morning, announced that the court will refer the files of Moustafa and Al-Sukkari to Egypt’s Grand Mufti.
While this is perceived by most as standard procedure in death penalty verdicts, some media and legal experts have suggested otherwise. Some commentators said that consulting the Mufti does not necessarily mean the judge’s final verdict, which in this case is set for June 25, will be the death penalty.
Judge Ahmed Mekki, deputy chairman of the Cairo Cassation Court, told Daily News Egypt that referring a case to the Mufti “implies that the court’s [final] sentence will be the death penalty.
Mekki stressed, however, that the court is not obliged to apply the Mufti’s suggestion. The Grand Mufti has 10 days to respond to the court’s request, Mekki added.
Media debates on what Qunsua meant entailed discussing evidence presented in court. Consequently the issue of whether the press ban still stands was also brought into the spotlight.
Mekki told Daily News Egypt that the press ban persists.
“The ban order lasts until the case ends and the final verdict can never be appealed or revoked, Mekki added.
Mekki also stated newspapers and talk shows that showed parts of the lawyers’ statements during the court sessions can be penalized.
Five journalists from Al-Masry Al-Youm and Al-Wafd newspapers were fined LE 10,000 each in February for violating the publishing ban, which was ordered by Qunsua in September 2008
Farouk Al-Dosouki, one of the five journalists who were fined for violating the publishing ban, also told BBC that the press ban is still active.
Yet, since last Thursday, many newspapers, whether state-run or independent, have been publishing details of the evidence presented in court.
Alleged transcripts of phone calls between the two defendants Moustafa and Al-Sukkari were published.
Newspapers and TV shows debated whether a blood-stained t-shirt – presented at the court as incriminating evidence against Al-Sukkari, who is accused of executing the murder at the behest of Moustafa – had traces of Al-Sukkari’s DNA.
But that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
Farid El-Deeb, the lawyer leading Moustafa’s defense team, appeared on “El-Beit Beitak TV show Saturday and accused the presiding judge of the South Cairo Criminal Court of being biased against Moustafa.
El-Deeb claimed that a lawyer on the plaintiff’s side – who was “furiously attacking Moustafa – lived in the same building as the Judge, but had concealed this information from public records. According to El-Deeb, once such information was revealed El-Deeb got the judge to ask the lawyer to step down.
These remarks hailed fierce criticism from the show’s host Mahmoud Saad and Karam Gabr, chairman of the board of the Rose Al-Youssef newspaper. Both accused El-Deeb of insulting the court.
“The defense team has to change this attitude or else, it will fasten the death penalty on Moustafa and Al-Sukkari, Gabr wrote in Rose Al-Youssef, while stressing on the integrity of the Egyptian judiciary.
Amr Adib, TV host of “Al-Qahira Al-Youm, echoed similar sentiments.
Adib congratulated the Egyptian judiciary on its fairness and objectivity and said that the sentence has proved that no one is above the law.
A member of the Shoura Council, Moustafa is also a member of the policies secretariat of the National Democratic Party.
“Many people expected that the case will be cooked for Moustafa, but it was not, Adib said.
“I only ask that now we leave the case to the court and not assign ourselves as judges. Moustafa and Al-Sukkari will remain to be defendants until the court’s final verdict says they are guilty, Adib added.
