Reality Check: The Americans’ Critical Case, Military Clarification Required

I have always sympathized with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the decisions it has made in order to ensure Egypt’s safety. I’ve always said that SCAF has walked on thorns because of its lack of clear vision and the disagreement among society’s strongest actors in regards to establishing a concrete plan to achieve full democracy.

After the uproar surrounding the foreign funding case in which several Americans were put on trial for political charges related to funds received by the human rights groups and other non-governmental organizations, the trial has been put on hold, following a sudden and dramatic coup. It makes us wonder: Why this sudden shift in the case? Why release the Americans and allow them to leave the country? What’s the secret behind the court’s withdrawal of the case? What is the critical element that prompted the court to make such a decision?

Without a doubt, there’s pressure on Egypt to back down from the case. The judiciary cannot question this pressure since their first responsibility is to the SCAF, which currently rules Egypt. The highest judicial authorities have pressured the court, though they haven’t taken this position on their own. Rather, they’re under pressure from the executive branch — meaning the SCAF and not the Egyptian government, which has no power over the case.

Investigative judges Sameh Abu Zeid and Ashraf Ashmawy are considering suspending the inquiry into the foreign funding case in solidarity with presiding Judge Mohamed Mahmoud Shokry. Shokry resigned from the court that was examining the case as a result of pressure from Judge Abdel-Moez Ibrahim, the head of Egypt’s Court of Appeals, to lift the travel ban on the foreign defendants who have already fled the country on an American military plane.

It was only natural for there to be a political backlash as a result of this intervention in judicial affairs. This takes us back to the time when the former government directly interfered with the judiciary and ran it according to its whims.

There are mutual accusations between Shokry, the now-resigned presiding judge and Ibrahim. The former claims that the latter pressured him into lifting the travel ban on the defendants, while the latter denies that he asked Shokry to lift the ban at all.

After the U.S. delegation’s arrival and subsequent meeting with Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, the head of the SCAF, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the case of the Americans held on charges of corrupting human rights groups and NGOs was nearing a solution.

We want to know the extent of the damage that Egypt will incur if legal action is taken against the accused Americans. We want to know the extent of the pressure that forced Egypt to give up its sovereignty to such a degree, making it subordinate to the U.S.

Must the SCAF explain its reasons, or whether there was any pressing interest that made us submit to such a degree? That the SCAF did not speak up will result in a significant loss of credibility, especially since it will be handing power over to the civilian authority within four months.

In the end, we salute the American government for the desperate defense of its citizens in other countries while, at the same time, more than 3,000 Egyptians abroad are in prison and not a finger has been lifted to help them.