CAIRO - Why should democratic countries shelter corrupt officials from totalitarian regimes? Many Egyptians have been asking this question of European countries like Britain and Spain, which have given sanctuary to some corrupt former officials and businessmen from Mubarak's regime. Some people comment on the fact there are no extradition treaties for criminals between Egypt and these countries. The real reason is that these countries do not accept the fact that criminals can still be sentenced to death in Egypt; they also fear that suspects may get an unfair trial. So what about those ex-officials who have already been convicted for financial crimes, but haven't been sentenced to death, such as ex-minister of finance Youssef Boutros Ghali, who is now happily living in London? On June 4, Ghali was sentenced in absentia to 30 years in prison by an Egyptian court, having been convicted of squandering public funds. The court also ordered him to return LE30 million and pay an additional LE30 million in fines. This paradox has angered some British liberals, who accuse their Government of claiming it supports the Arab revolutions while simultaneously sheltering former regime members accused of fraud, theft and/or human rights abuses, as the British Shadow Justice Minister, Andy Slaughter, stated recently. Quoted by the Independent newspaper, Slaughter said: "This country once had a reputation for upholding international law, not as a refuge for criminals and fraudsters." The Egyptian people haven't forgotten that London is still sheltering fugitive businessman Mamdouh Salem, the owner of the el-Salam ferry that sank in the Red Sea in 2006, killing more than 1,000 people. If Britain and other European countries justify their insistence on sheltering wanted criminals on the fact that they don't have extradition treaties with Egypt, how can we believe that they will help the Egyptian people retrieve the money stolen by these people and deposited in these countries' banks?
