On charges of insulting Al-Sisi … a judicial order to fire an official in an Egyptian government channel


The Supreme Administrative Court of the Egyptian State Council decided to dismiss the director of external recordings with the rank of director general of the Nile Drama Channel from service For attacking the person of the head of state through his Facebook account.

And it was stated in the verdict that Ali Hussein Abd al-Latif (whose fame is Ali Abu Hamila) had “written very insulting and insulting words to the person of the President of the Republic (Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi) that the court refuses to mention these disgraceful words or repeat them in the pages of its ruling.”

The aforementioned words coincided with “the occasion of redrawing the maritime borders between Egypt and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which includes the islands of Tiran and Sanafir,” according to the court, and that the accused attached to his publication a picture of the President of the Republic and a picture of the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The court added that verifying the significance of the phrases or actions whether they contain an insult or not is up to the judge of the matter to assess it, guided by the circumstances of the incident and the words in which it was said in a time and place, and whether they contain a meaning that carries offense or an affront to feelings or degradation of dignity.

The court stated that the appellant had acknowledged and recognized the nefarious phrases that he wrote on his personal Facebook page against the President of the Republic, explaining that it is freedom of opinion, and this recognition remained valid and he wrote it in the appeals report, and remained with him throughout the litigation procedures until the moment the appeal was booked for judgment.

And she confirmed that it is proven from the papers that the appellant, according to the indictment report submitted by the Administrative Prosecution Authority in Case No. 220 of 2016, was attributed to writing expressions of severe insulting and insulting to the person of the President of the Republic, as contained in the contested judgment, proven in his right as a certain proof of his confession and approval, which is a departure from it On his job duty in the bad words used that involve verbal abuse, while he was in a sensitive media position, he should have committed himself to communicate with his superiors, so what about him by addressing the President of the Republic, the symbol of the state.

The ruling concluded that “what the appellant published in terms of insulting and insulting to the President of the Republic, which makes him lose the confidence and consideration necessary to assume and continue in public office, which constitutes a grave administrative sin on him that requires his disciplinary punishment in order to deter him from committing serious due diligence. Service is the fullest penalty, and what the appealed judgment has attained is the right and sincerity, and the appeal to the appealed ruling becomes without a basis for law and no shadow of reality must be rejected.

A crime of insulting the President of the Republic

The court clarified that the crime of insulting the President of the Republic is committed by any means of publicity, and the meaning of the insult extends to include insulting and defamation and what is less than that (saying, deed, gesture or shouting) can be considered an insult or a defect against the president. Whether the announcement of this opinion is explicit, or gesture, or writing, drawings, pictures, symbols, or any other method of expression.

The court continued: “The crime of insulting the head of state is one of crimes harmful to the public interest, and the reason for that is that prejudice to the head of state is an affront to the respect and prestige of the state because of the position he holds in the country. Therefore, legislation is keen to provide protection for him so that he can perform his duties and responsibilities in managing the affairs of the state. Governance and the country are calm and serene. ”

The court indicated that if the constitution stipulates that the citizen has the right to address the state authorities as a form of the right to expression, this speech or complaint must be within the framework of what the constitution has decided and the scope of controls established by this court, that this speech or complaint does not include defamation or Verbal abuse, insult, slander, or incorrect facts that have no evidence of words, deeds or support.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here