Nasser Amin, who heads the Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and Legal Profession (ACIJLP), expressed strong support for this verdict. Ever since Ibrahim and 27 others, mostly staff members of the Ibn Khaldoun Center, were first arrested in 2000, human rights groups and democracy advocates charged the Government with using State Security courts to intimidate the civil society movement. This, they said, proved that the judiciary, and specifically the State Security Court that handed down both guilty verdicts, lacked the independence required to achieve real democracy.
At the appeal hearing before the Court of Cassation, Ibrahim's lawyers said the State Security Court did not believe the evidence and witnesses of the defense. They pointed to a case where a former Supreme Court chief justice challenged the constitutionality of a military decree banning the acceptance of foreign funding without Government approval, but this was ignored.
Ibrahim's family said they placed high hopes in the Court of Cassation's reputation as a fully independent body not swayed by the Government's political pressure. The judges, led by the Court of Cassation's Chief Justice Fathi Khalifa, did not disappoint. For the second time, the Court of Cassation disagreed with the lower circuit State Security Court and nullified its ruling.
"The latest verdict shows that the Court of Cassation is the only fully independent court in Egypt because its judges are not subject to judicial supervision under the Ministry of Justice," said Nasser Amin. Joe Stork, the director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division said: "The outcome of the appeal confirms that the trial was unfair and the verdict unsound. These trials were politically motivated from the outset and riddled with procedural irregularities. They should never have taken place."
Stork's group and diplomats have been critical of the Government's actions in this case. But Ibrahim's family members and civil rights activists say they don't believe the court was swayed by international criticism. Indeed, a spokesman of Hisham Mubarak Law Center said that, much like scientists want to be recognized by the international community for their research, Cassation Court judges want to be recognized as good judges, which explains why they try to be independent from the Government. Despite the Court of Cassation's good reputation, the entire system needs an overhaul. There is no appeal process in lower circuit courts. Appeals go directly to the Cassation Court, which can rule only on procedural matters. This needs to be changed.
Ibrahim's case marks a turning point in the democratization process in Egypt. But his ordeal is not over yet. The Court of Cassation ordered a retrial. So Ibrahim and three colleagues will face the same charges for the third time. The others will not, because they were given suspended sentences. This time, however, the Cassation Court itself will hear the case - the normal procedure when a trial is held for the third time on the same charges.
In May 2001, Saad Eddin Ibrahim was sentenced by the State Security Court to seven years in prison, while three others were given lesser prison terms. The rest were given suspended sentences. In February 2002, the Court of Cassation overturned the verdict and ordered a retrial. In July 2002, the State Security Court convicted Ibrahim again and handed down the same sentence. On December 3rd, the Court of Cassation again overturned the convictions on procedural grounds. Under Egyptian law, an appeal can only be heard on procedural grounds. On 7 January 2003, Ibrahim and three other defendants will face a new trial in the Court of Cassation. The others have already served their jail sentences. The Court of Cassation's third decision cannot be appealed and will be final. So far, Ibrahim has spent 14 months in prison.
