Who gains what from the debacle that has engulfed the legal case against unlicensed NGOs? Mohamed Abdel-Baky reports The lifting of the travel ban on foreigners employed by NGOs accused of receiving foreign funds illegally and operating without a licence has added to the confusion surrounding the case, leaving both the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and the government of Prime Minister Kamal El-Ganzouri facing accusations that they whipped up the entire affair to begin with only to back down in the face of US pressure. Politicians and public alike are now ridiculing El-Ganzouri who was until recently busy issuing vehement statements about how Egypt "would not yield to threats over the annual aid it receives from the US". The case also raises questions over how independent the judiciary really is in post-Mubarak Egypt. On 29 February Abdel-Moezz Ibrahim, head of the Court of Appeal, announced that the travel ban had been lifted by an unnamed judge. The next day six Americans left the country. They were accompanied on the US plane by seven other foreigners holding German, Palestinian and Serbian passports. The four US-based NGOs implicated in the case posted nearly $5 million in bail. The Americans were among 43 employees indicted, employees at the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House, International Centre For Journalists (ICFJ) and the German Konrad Adeneur Foundation. The departure of the foreign defendants came a day after the panel of judges, presided over by Mahmoud Shukri, recused themselves from the case two days after the opening session. Judicial sources claim Ibrahim had asked Shukri to lift the travel ban and Shukri refused. Ibrahim has reassigned the case to the Southern Cairo Court. It has been rescheduled for 8 March. People's Assembly speaker Saad El-Katatni has said that parliament is seeking to question El-Ganzouri and other cabinet ministers about the case on Saturday. "This was not something that could be settled by a political decision. The case raises many questions," El-Katatni said during the joint session of parliament on 3 March. Fayza Abul-Naga, who as minister of international cooperation is one of the few cabinet survivors from the Mubarak era, and the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF), have been accused by politicians of compromising judicial independence in the same way as the previous regime. Asked by the People's Assembly Economic Committee what she thought of a case she was instrumental in promoting, Abul-Naga claimed she only knew of the lifting of the travel ban when it was reported in the media. The head of the Human Rights Committee in the People's Assembly, Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat, demanded Abul-Naga be sacked after what he termed "the dramatic end of a play she had largely scripted from the beginning". Nasser Amin, of the Arab Centre for the Independence of the Judiciary and Legal Profession, insisted that civil society was opposed to any interference in the work of the judiciary even if it comes at their own expense. "The pressure applied in this case shows clearly that the judiciary is far from independent. The stepping down of judges illustrates that some are willing to defend independence while others are not." The Muslim Brotherhood joined its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), in criticising the government for lifting the travel ban. "The departure of the Americans is the most dangerous thing to have happened since the revolution," intoned FJP MP Akram El-Shaer. "NGO trials in Egypt: Erratic due process is blatantly irreconcilable with an independent judiciary and genuine democracy," tweeted former head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog Mohamed El-Baradei. The government, says director of the Cairo Centre for Human Rights Studies Bahieddin Hassan, has a lot of explaining to do given that "for months officials have been trying to convince the public that the country is being infiltrated by foreign powers and that there is a plan to divide Egypt." Both SCAF and the government it appointed deny having any influence over the decision to allow the defendants to leave Egypt. "It is a judicial matter. SCAF has not and will not interfere in this issue," head of the Military Engineering Authority Major General Taher Abdallah told reporters on Tuesday. El-Ganzouri echoed Abdallah's words, insisting that no pressure had been brought to bear on any judges connected with the case. "Egypt will not kneel down to any foreign powers," said the prime minister after Tuesday's cabinet meeting. Leftist MP Abul-Ezz El-Hariri accused SCAF of being behind the case from the start. "They created the case in an attempt to distract the public from the Mubarak trial and their own failures over the last year," he said. In the Shura Council neither Abul-Naga nor the minister of justice turned up to answer questions over the case. Government officials say both were attending an important cabinet meeting and had been given insufficient notice to rearrange their diaries. Many analysts have questioned whether it is wise to continue with the trial of the remaining Egyptian defendants at a time when public opinion is enflamed. Negad El-Borai, who is representing Freedom House employees, has revealed that he has requested the prosecutor-general to order the delay of hearings until further notice. In such tense atmosphere, he argues, the remaining Egyptian defendants are unlikely to receive a fair trial, and there is a possibility that they will be used as a scapegoat by a compromised judicial authority desperate to demonstrate its independence. El-Borai has already filed a complaint to the chairman of Supreme Judiciary Council against Ashraf El-Ashmawi and Sameh Abul- Yazid, the judges who conducted the initial investigation. He accused them of violating the judicial code by taking the politically motivated decision to hold a press conference and reveal the details of the indictments ahead of any trial.
