[JURIST] Egypt’s top prosecutor on Saturday referred 439 individuals to a military tribunal for the killing of three police officers last year. The group was composed [AP report] of about 139 Islamists from the southern province of Minya and 300 from the Nile Delta Province of Beheira. The prosecutor’s case was based on the violence last year in response to a vehement dispersal by police of an islamist sit in. The prosecutor’s case is part of a program that Egyptian president Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi [BBC profile] started last year where Egyptian military were to join with police to protect Egyptian interests, and anyone involved in attacks against state facilities would be prosecuted by military tribunals. Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] stated that these military tribunals “lack even the shaky due process guarantees provided by regular courts.”
Egypt’s government has been under much scrutiny internationally for acts associated with this military tribunal and their new constitution. Earlier this month 188 individuals were sentenced [JURIST report] to death over the murder of 11 Egyptian police officers. In late November Egyptian authorities arrested [JURIST report] a top Muslim Brotherhood [JURIST news archive] member who played a key role in negotiations between the group and the Egyptian government while the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information [advocacy website] released [JURIST report] a study pointing to at least 12 violations of 12 articles of Egypt’s constitution [text], which passed in January of this year. In October the military tribunals sentenced [JURIST report] 23 activists to three years in prison for protesting without a permit, an act that violates a law enacted [JURIST report] in November 2013. In September of this year prominent Egyptian blogger and activist Alaa Abdel-Fattah [Twitter feed; in Arabic], was released [JURIST report] on bail as he faces retrial for organizing an unauthorized protest.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.