The Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights waited 18 years for official legal recognition. Now that it has finally arrived, Gihan Shahine tries to find out what's next The recent legalisation of Egypt's most prestigious human rights group -- the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights (EOHR) -- has inspired a great many questions. The organisation's 18- year battle for legal recognition finally ended on 24 June, with the Ministry of Social Affairs' (MOSA) acceptance of the group's registration. With the EOHR now officially sanctioned by the ministry's non- governmental organisations (NGO) Law 84/2002, analysts are debating whether a clampdown on the group's activities is imminent. Observers have also been wondering about the timing of the move, coming as it does just after the ministry's rejection of two other NGOs -- the New Woman Research Centre (NWRC) and the Land Centre for Human Rights (LCHR) -- on security grounds. Many activists are wondering exactly what rules or criteria the ministry is following when it comes to registering NGOs. Political analysts said registrations are decided "haphazardly", and even "oppressively". These analysts expressed more concern than happiness about the EOHR's new status. Many explained to Al-Ahram Weekly that legalising the EOHR would actually place the group's activities under increased government scrutiny, since the current NGO law, they said, is "highly restrictive". At the same time, these analysts also said the move was a must for the group to continue functioning; otherwise, a variety of financial and legal factors would have created a climate of uncertainty, making it difficult to continue working. EOHR Secretary-General Hafez Abu Se'da did not have a definitive answer about why the ministry decided to give the organisation its blessing at this point in time. It could have been the recent court ruling that declared the organisation legal, the fact that human rights issues have recently been high on the international agenda, or the government's desire to avoid embarrassment for not recognising Egypt's oldest and most renowned organisation in the field. "In any case," Abu' Se'da told the Weekly, "the decision was probably made by a higher-ranking authority than the Ministry of Social Affairs," hinting that the ministry probably received a green light from security bodies, before proceeding with its legalisation of the organisation. For Abu Se'da, however, what really matters is that the organisation was accepted "as it is, and without making any concessions or having to compromise its activities". Abu Se'da told the Weekly that was the reason he "insisted on issuing our annual report just prior to becoming registered". This year's report tackles many sensitive issues including torture, involuntary or coercive disappearance, the status of Egyptian immigrants, and the rights to freedom of assembly, self- expression, and a fair trial. "We did not have to remove one single word from it," Abu Se'da said. In 2001, the EOHR won an administrative court ruling granting the organisation legal recognition based on Law 153/1999, but the registration, Abu Se'da said, was delayed, most probably "for security reasons". Law 153 was later declared unconstitutional and the MOSA asked the EOHR to wait until Law 84/2002 -- which replaced Law 153 -- was enacted. When the law came into force last January, the EOHR submitted the official paperwork, and the registration came through in June. The organisation had been striving for legality since 1987, when the MOSA rejected their application based on the fact that "there was another organisation working in the same field and geographic area," said Abu Se'da. "The real reason, however," he added, "was always that our activities exposed human rights violations and the government normally branded us rebellious and merely dismissed our reports as illegal." In 1991, the EOHR filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force the government to accept its registration request. When they lost the suit, the group decided to take the case to the Supreme Administrative Court, where, after a long series of legal battles, the EOHR finally won an appeal on 1 July 2001. "We had a strong conviction in our role, and our constitutional right to report on human rights violations in Egypt," Abu Se'da said. Ibrahim El-Tokhy, head of the ministry's central NGO department, would not dwell on the details that ultimately led to the EOHR's registration. "What matters here is that legalising the EOHR means we are not taking a stance against human rights organisations, as they claim we do," El- Tokhy told the Weekly. "We welcome all those who work for the benefit of the community, who show transparency, and comply with the law. Only when NGOs do otherwise do we reject their registration." El-Tokhy could not provide an explanation for the rejection of the two other NGOs on security grounds. "I don't have details on why the two organisations were rejected now," he said. "But, in any case, NGOs are entitled to contest our decision and we always respect and comply with court rulings." Many human rights activists, however, maintain that the EOHR's court ruling would not have necessarily guaranteed the group's legality. A more important factor, perhaps, was that the EOHR had gained so much fame and credibility worldwide that it would have been "very embarrassing" and even "shameful" for the government to continue to deny its existence. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, for one, had previously denounced the government's attitude in this regard, issuing recommendations in its periodical reports demanding that the organisation be legally registered. According to Baheieddin Hassan, director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights, "had it insisted on not legalising the EOHR, the cost would have been too high for the government to afford. It would have been a political scandal, indeed." That, however, does not apply to the NWRC and the LCHR, which are not as well known abroad. Rejecting these two groups would not trigger international criticism of the government, according to Mohamed El-Sayed Said, deputy director of Al-Ahram's Centre for Political and Strategic Studies. "A few lines in an international newspaper or a UN report would be enough to elicit government reaction, whereas local response, no matter how strong, would usually fall on deaf ears," lamented Hassan. "And that explains why the government registered the EOHR and did not mind rejecting the applications of the other two NGOs, in violation of the constitution and the law." Said thinks the government also wanted to win over some civil society activists and prove that the new law (84/ 2002) was more tolerant and less restrictive when it comes to registering NGOs. In this respect, the EOHR's registration was "no more than an acid test", he said. Many activists, however, think that registering the EOHR, or any other NGO, does not signify a change in the government's "iron fist policy", which they describe as being mired in double standards. In other words, legislation exists that allows the right of free assembly while security bodies are simultaneously granted the right to interfere and clamp down on civil activists. Whenever they tackle sensitive issues, complained a disenchanted Hassan, "human right activists work under increased scrutiny by the government, and end up getting so bogged down in settling disputes with authorities that they don't have any time for research and civil work." Many analysts worried about how the registration would change the dynamics of the EOHR's work. According to Said, the group would now face "a new set of challenges, which may very well kill their activities". Funding and board elections are two of these major challenges. Law 84/2002 requires every organisation to submit a list of candidates for ministry approval before elections are held. Organisations must also get the ministry's permission before receiving local or foreign funds, which the ministry has the right to veto, or merely delay, without providing a reason why, Hassan said. Since the law requires the organisation to seek government approval for nearly every activity that it embarks upon, "if the EOHR, for instance, wants to produce a report on parliamentary elections, the government would not openly say it does not want the report," said Said. "Instead, it would reject the source of funding, or merely delay its approval until the elections are history." The EOHR has been best with financial difficulties over the past few years, resulting in forced layoffs and a lower profile of activities. Abu Se'da was briefly arrested in 1998 for accepting foreign funding without government approval. Since then, the organisation has almost stopped accepting any foreign funding. "Other than the fact that it is a moral victory," Abu Se'da told the Weekly, "granting [us] legality will allow the organisation to seek local funding and better interact with society while doing research. We will no longer be branded an illegal group, and that will probably make us work more effectively." Abu Se'da is aware of the many new problems waiting round the corner, but still remains undaunted. "We know the kind of challenges we'll be facing, and how to deal with them," he said confidently. "We can always resort to the courts, but the important thing is that we have vowed to never allow these technical problems to undermine our work."
