03 January 2006

The recent trial of Egyptian opposition figure Ayman Nour was a circus, complete with baying audiences, strongmen keeping ravenous hordes at bay, and cages being rattled in a desperate attempt at freedom. The trial's entertainment value was as dubious as its outcome, and credibility. Nour was accused of forgery and sentenced to five years' in prison.

Regardless of Nour's innocence or guilt, there will be very few people who will accept the court's decision. This trial was a see-saw of doubt and suspicion. If the intent of the court was to uphold justice, then the affair was very badly handled. If its intent, as alleged by Nour's supporters and myriad independent observers, was merely to discredit the opposition politician, then it was even more of a failure. To many, Nour has become a symbol of the fight against injustice; the trial a mess for Egypt's regime.

Nour, the head of Al-Ghad party was charged earlier this year with falsifying signatures needed to gain legal recognition for his party. His trial began on June 28 and in a singularly unfortunate case of miscasting, the judge appointed was Adel Abd al-Salam Gomaa, who in 2002 gained international fame as the person who found American University in Cairo professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim guilty of "damaging Egypt's reputation abroad." One would have thought that the subsequent international hoopla over that trial then - and the ensuing embarrassment - would have set off warning bells among Egyptian officialdom. Apparently not.

This Nour trial did not start auspiciously. Seven people were tried along with him, five of whom alleged Nour had pressured them into forging the signatures; another was tried in absentia; and the seventh later retracted his statement two days into the trial, clearing Nour. He claimed that state security agents had pressured him into lying about the case. It took two attempts before Gomaa agreed to place the retraction in the record. 

Gomaa refused to grant defense requests for access to important documents, among them the allegedly forged signatures. The defense also railed against the judge's initial refusal to allow them to subpoena an official of the Public Audit Bureau who had been seen discussing plans with another defendant to "entrap Nour in the forgery scheme,"

according to a Human Rights Watch report. Gomaa eventually consented, but the count of irregularities tallied up by Human Rights Watch, among other groups, continued to rise. One can add to this the fact that lawyers, including Nour's own, as well as journalists and Al-Ghad supporters, were often kept out of court because there wasn't enough room for them due to the hordes of plainclothes policemen and security personnel.

 In September, Nour, out on bail, campaigned against President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt's first ever multi-candidate presidential election. There were 10 candidates in all, but Nour was the only one to make significant headway; he placed second against the president, garnering 8 percent of the vote in elections generally recognized to be fair. It was unclear what happened to his support base in the few months after that, however. In the latest parliamentary elections, Nour couldn't even keep his constituency in Bab al-Shariaa. That said, the parliamentary elections, steeped in violence and corruption, were not been above suspicion.

 All the best circuses attract out-of-town visitors. A year ago, when Nour was first arrested, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice showed Washington's displeasure by canceling a visit to Egypt. The United States has consistently

expressed its displeasure over the Nour trial. The White House went so far as to release a statement on December 24 calling for Nour's release and saying that his detention "cast doubt on Egypt's commitment to democratic reform and the rule of the law."

 Of course, one could point out that the country that set up the Guantanamo Bay prison is not entitled to talk about rule of law. More practically, one might look at a recent Washington Post editorial suggesting the U.S. show support for Nour by suspending the $1 billion in military aid Egypt receives from the U.S. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood was less ambiguous in backing Nour. Its spokesman, Issam al-

Arian, himself just out of prison, declared that "political rivalries should be handled in a civilized manner." 

What exactly, has been achieved with Nour's trial? Nothing good, that's for certain. The trial was handled with such heavy-handed ineptitude that it lost any credibility at home and abroad.

Ultimately, however, it is not the

approval of the U.S. or others that the Egyptian government must earn; it's the approval and trust of its own citizens. For the law to be upheld, citizens must believe in its infallibility. Egyptians need to believe in the independence of their

judicial system. They need to believe that their courts are a haven of integrity, not a fighting pit for venting grudges.

 Nour's case will probably be taken to the Court of Cassation, the country's highest appeals court. While the latter's integrity has managed to survive recent years relatively unscathed, its decisions have been overturned. Whatever the court's ruling, any attempt to overturn it would be a mistake. Like so much in Egypt, the issue is accountability. The legal system is there to protect citizens. The only loyalty expected of the judiciary is to the people, independent of any political or religious affiliation.

Mirette F. Mabrouk is publisher of Egyptian Media Services, which publishes THE DAILY STAR in Egypt.