The Proceedings and Procedural Irregularities

Since the original arrest of Dr. Ibrahim in June 2000, the Egyptian authorities have sealed and closed the Ibn Khaldun Center and the Center for Egyptian Women Voters (HODA). The defendants' lawyers were denied access in both trials to crucial files and documents from the Ibn Khaldun Center needed to prepare their defense. More importantly, officers of the State Security Intelligence (SSI) seized many documents from the Center to use in their prosecution of the defendants. Review of these documents was denied to the defense team until four months after the first trial had already begun. At that time, the defense team was only allowed one session in the courthouse to review the thousands of pages of documents, and requests for copying the documents were denied.

In the second trial in 2002, prosecutors referred repeatedly to the existence of a fax signed by Dr. Ibrahim and addressed to a German aid agency. This fax was never presented in the official evidence of the prosecution, and lawyers never were able to view the alleged fax. This type of procedural irregularity is one among many examples of the denial of due process and a fair trial. More than 20 of the accused were held for weeks in detention in 2000 without formal charges. Subsequently, a court case was announced in the newspapers, but defendants were not provided written notification of the indictments or confirmation of court dates. All of this they learned from the daily newspapers.

During all court proceedings, the defendants were placed in a barred cage without chairs sometimes wooden benches were taken from the spectators! area, once Dr. Ibrahim's lawyers complained of his health problems.Some court sessions lasted more than five hours, during which time the cage remained locked. In the third trial, the judges repeatedly scheduled sessions for 9:00 am but did not arrive to begin the proceedings until noon or later.

The chief judge in the second trial was apparently displeased with the sustained attendance of foreign observers. He periodically shouted at those who sat with crossed legs or with their hands in their pockets, or who whispered, and once ordered an Italian journalist forcibly removed for crossing the room to ask a question of his colleague while oral arguments were underway. This same judge, however, allowed Egyptian news reporters to and cameramen to stand directly in front of defense lawyers while they were addressing the bench.

This judge on three occasions during the final week of the trial made statements during court sessions that can only be construed in hindsight as misleading and false: He told lawyers that the amount of written material they had submitted would require him to postpone a verdict for "weeks." He told prosecutors who asked for an opportunity of rebuttal following the defense of Dr. Ibrahim that he would allow rebuttal for both sides at the end of all defense arguments. He further told Dr. Ibrahim directly that while he would not allow defendants to address the court, he would accept his written testimony at the end of the trial. None of these promises were kept, and so they can only be seen as having been designed to mislead court observers and ensure a near-empty courtroom on the day of the surprise sentencing.
Precedent in Egypt, as well as common decency, calls for the judge to open a final trial session by announcing that in this session he will give a ruling. This allows for lawyers to be present and for defendants to be informed of their status. The custom was violated in both Ibn Khaldun Center trials, in which sentencing took place unexpectedly and without warning. In both instances, some of the key defense lawyers and family members of the accused had left the building before sentencing was read.