By Laura Zuber
Impunity Watch Senior Desk Officer, Middle East
CAIRO, Egypt – An Egyptian military court convicted 25 members of the Muslim Brotherhood on various charges including money laundering and supporting terrorism. Specifically, they were alleged to have financed a banned organization and provided students with weapons and military training.
Of the 25 sentenced, five received ten year sentences, two received seven years, five were sentenced to five years and the remaining thirteen received three years sentences. 15 individuals were acquitted of the charges but are not yet released.
Among those convicted were the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief strategist, Khayrat al-Shater, and its prominent financier, businessman Hassan Malik. Shater and Malik were each sentenced to seven year imprisonment. Malik and six other convicted men were tried absentia.
The group’s lawyer, Abdel-Moneim Abdel-Maqsud, told Daily News Egypt that “it is a harsh sentence and there was no case in the first place.” “This was a politically-motivated case tried in a court which guarantees no rights to those standing trial.”
Amnesty International spokeswoman Nicole Choueiry stated, “The sentences handed down against 25 members of the Muslim Brotherhood today are a subversion of justice in Egypt.” Amnesty International claimed that the trial was politically motivated from the beginning: “Today’s sentences leave no doubt that the Egyptian authorities are bent on continuing their relentless campaign to undermine at all levels the main opposition group in the country.”
Even though all 40 defendants on trial were civilians, they were tried before a military court. Under the framework of a military court, Egypt was able to exercise more control over the trial. For example, when the verdict was announced, defendants’ lawyers were not present, nor were family members permitted into the court. In addition, independent observers, some sent by Amnesty International, were not permitted to attend the sentencing.
Another important difference between military court and civilian court is the defendant’s ability to appeal the verdict. In a military court, the defendants are able to appeal to the Supreme Court of Military Appeals, but that court is only able to examine procedural matters, not the merits of the case.
The political aspect of the trial is evidenced by the fact that the accused were referred to a military court by presidential decree. Earlier, a civilian criminal court threw out charges against 17 of the accused.
Additionally, 34 individuals were arrested during scuffles between demonstrators and state police outside the court building. The incident began as relatives of the accused tried to force their way into the closed sentencing.
For more information, please see:
Al Jazeera – Egypt Jails Brotherhood Leaders – 15 April 2008
Amnesty International – Perversion of Justice – 25 Face Jail in Egypt – 15 April 2008
Associated Press – 25 Egypt Opposition Members Sentences – 15 April 2008
BBC – Egyptians Jail 25 Brotherhood Men – 15 April 2008
Daily News Egypt – Brotherhood Trials Ends in Prison Terms as Trouble Erupts Outside Court – 15 April 2008
Middle East Times – Egypt Jails 25 Islamists in “Political” Trial – 15 April 2008
