Egypt’s House Speaker thanks Minster of Justice for efforts in drafting Criminal Procedures Law

CAIRO -16 October 2025: Speaker of the House of Representatives, Counselor Hanafi El-Gebali, expressed his thanks and appreciation to Minister of Justice Counselor Adnan Fangari.

In a speech, Thursday, he highlighted the Minister of Justice's high legal standing and his pivotal role as one of the key pillars that contributed to the drafting of the Criminal Procedures Law.

“You are a man of justice and a legal jurist, and you were one of the pillars upon which the structure of this law was built. You were a true and effective addition, and our difference of legal opinion regarding some articles was merely a commitment to the constitution and to upholding the interests of the country and the citizen,” Speaker of the House of Representatives said.

Egypt’s Ministry of Justice said in a statement, Thursday that Criminal Procedure Law amendments represent a ‘qualitative shift in the criminal procedure system and reflect the constructive cooperation between the legislative and judicial authorities.’

It added that it is enhancing community confidence in the justice system and serving the public interest.

During its plenary session on Thursday, chaired by Speaker Dr. Hanafi Gebaly, the House of Representatives gave a final approval to the draft Criminal Procedures Law, after addressing the President’s comments on eight of its articles.

On September 21, 2025, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi directed that the draft Criminal Procedure Law be returned to the House of Representatives to review objections to some of its articles, the presidential spokesman said in a statement.

The law had been sent to the Presidency on August 26 for approval. However, the president received numerous appeals urging reconsideration of certain provisions, the spokesman noted. The contested articles relate to issues of governance, clarity, and practicality, the statement read.

The Presidency added that the review is also needed to expand alternatives to pre-trial detention, minimizing reliance on it, and removing ambiguities in legal drafting that could result in multiple interpretations or enforcement challenges, according to the appeals.