Sentencing Ahmed Douma: Constitutional Guarantees and Judicial Practice in Egypt
By Sabahat Mazhar
If any provision of the penal code contradicts the constitution, it becomes void. A state that continues to enforce such a provision of a penal code does not violate a law, but it violates a fundamental legal principle of the supremacy of the Constitution.
The sentencing of Ahmed Douma is a case in point. On June 3, 2026, the New Cairo Misdemeanor Court sentenced Ahmed Douma to one year in prison with hard labour and immediate effect. The Court invoked the provisions of Article 80(d) of the Penal Code for the sentencing. However, this provision stands in direct conflict with Article 71 of the Egyptian Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Ahmed Douma is a prominent Egyptian activist, writer, and poet who emerged as a leading figure during the 2011 revolution that toppled former President Hosni Mubarak. Despite receiving a presidential pardon in 2023 after spending over a decade in prison, Douma continued writing critically about Egyptian authorities. On April 6, 2026, following an interrogation at the Supreme State Security Prosecution headquarters, he was arrested and subsequently held in pretrial detention. He faced several charges, which originated from writing an article for the London-based news website The New Arab, titled “From a Prison Inside the State to a State inside a Prison,” as well as posts on his personal social media accounts. Only two sessions of his trial were held on April 29 and May 13, during which the Court rejected defence requests to hear testimony from witnesses and experts. The Court also ignored requests to inspect detention facilities to verify Douma’s claim about 24-hour lighting, deeming the claim as “false news.”
The statutory framework invoked by the Court in this case centres on Article 80(d) of the Penal Code, which criminalizes the broadcasting of “false news, statements or rumours” that “weaken the state’s financial confidence or its prestige and reputation” or cause activity that would “harm the national interests of the country.” However, the article does not specify what exactly constitutes damage to the prestige or reputation of the state, leaving it to the discretion of the Courts to define it. Additionally, the 2006 amendment removed the word “malicious” from Article 80 (d). Without a malicious intent requirement, deliberate broadcasting alone is sufficient for conviction.
The central tension in this case is the collision of Article 80d of the Penal Code with Article 71 of the Constitution. Article 71 says, “No custodial sanction shall be imposed for crimes committed by way of publication or the public nature thereof.” In other words, imprisonment cannot be a punishment for expression-based crimes. The Constitution provides three narrow exceptions to this rule, limited to incitement to violence, discrimination between citizens, and defamation of individuals. Notably, the charges against Douma, originating from writing articles and his social media posts, fit none of these exceptions. The charges concern harm to state prestige and national interests, institutional harms that fall outside all three exceptions. However, Article 80(d) imposes a custodial sentence for a publication crime outside the three exceptions. According to Masaar, an independent Egyptian non-profit of lawyers and technologists, the article is unconstitutional under the 2014 Constitution, yet it remains in force and continues to be enforced by Egyptian courts.
The tension manifests as a legislative gap. Under the principle of constitutional supremacy, Article 80(d) has been void since 2014 and requires amendment. However, the legislature has not acted, and courts continue to enforce it. Douma’s case is not isolated. It echoes that of economic commentator Abdel Khaleq Farouk, who was sentenced to five years in October 2025 on similar charges. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Egypt currently imprisons 18 journalists, making it one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists. Egypt’s record sits within a broader global decline in press freedom and civic space.
Freedom of expression has declined by an estimated 10% since 2012, reflecting a broader global contraction of civil liberties. The international standard on free expression is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to hold opinions without interference and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information through any media. Egypt ratified the ICCPR in 1982, binding itself to these obligations under international law. Article 80(d) of the Egyptian Penal Code, as currently enforced, constitutes a violation of these treaty commitments, according to Human Rights Watch.
Condemning a single verdict without examining the structural failure behind it risks mistaking an outcome for its cause.