Background:
This interview concerns the court case of four members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) who had been arrested right before the upcoming parliamentary elections in November 1995. Aḥmad al-Khawāja, Head of the Lawyer’s Syndicate, not an Islamist himself but the lawyer representing the MB detainees, describes the trial and corrupt accusations based on possible political predilection.
The questions are asked in English, but Al-Khawāja replies to these in Arabic. There is, however, a translator present.
Side A:
Al-Khawāja says when he went through the documentation of the MB defendants’ case, some documents were missing and had not been sent to court, so the case had to be postponed for 8 days in order to prepare the necessary documentation. He believes that the case had been based entirely on a certain political agenda of the ruling party, and since the trial was so close to the upcoming elections, al-Khawāja justifies his statements by arguing that it was an attempt in preventing the defendants from running for candidacy.
Al-Khawāja is asked to comment on speculations regarding the suspicious relations between the Minister of Interior Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm Mūsā and al-Jamāʿah al-Islāmiyya, but no clear answer was given.
Furthermore, al-Khawāja states that the charges were regarding the illegal establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, and thus they were members of an illegal organisation. Al-Khawāja argues that if the movement had been created now, it would have been considered as an illegal activity. However, the MB is a very old organization that was founded in 1928. Thus, one cannot accuse someone of establishing an illegal organization when it has already been in place for many years. Allegedly, the defendants had been accused of asking for approval to establish a movement from the high administrative committee of the Muslim Brotherhood, but al-Khawāja argues this to be completely illogical. How can someone ask for approval for establishing a movement from an existing committee that is part of that same movement?, he asks. Therefore, al-Khawāja reasons that the organisation must have been in place prior to the case. He believes the accusations are illogical and do not at all have any legal foundation to back it up.
Moreover, the trial itself does not stop the MB defendants from running for candidacy in parliament says al-Khawāja, that would only be the case if a court decision were to be taken against them, only then would they lose this chance. However, for now, the defendants are still eligible to run for candidacy. Al-Khawāja does not think having pluralism in Egyptian politics means that the MB movement is allowed to establish its own political party per se, pluralism de facto means to have a variety of different parties that have an actual chance of having a say in law making. Furthermore, the MB supposedly have a number of alternative members who could run for candidacy, so even if the court’s decision would be to condemn the defendant, this would not mean a huge blow to the movement. In fact, al-Khawāja believes the trial works to the movement’s advantage as it reveals the corruption and injustice in the current regime, and this would encourage people to vote for them.
The defendants, who were detained, were taken to stand in front of a military judge, which according to the constitution is illegal, unless this is done when the Emergency Law is in place says al-Khawāja. However, he is sceptical of this in the first place because he fails to understand how a nation could be under emergency for 14 years. There is no great difference between the civil and military courts in terms of defending. However, the guarantees that the defendant has in front of a civil court are much more solid. In civil court, there is the possibility of disagreeing with the judge,this is not the case in military court, says al-Khawāja. In military court, the final pronouncement lies with the highest commander of the army who certifies the court’s decision.
