In Egypt’s trial of the century, prosecution witnesses sound like
they’re testifying for the former dictator’s defense. Ursula Lindsey on a case
full of holes.
By Ursula Lindsey
Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak lies on his bed while being taken to the courtroom for another session of his trial in Cairo, Egypt, on Sept. 7., AP Photo
Even
though a judge has ordered a halt to live broadcasts of Hosni Mubarak’s trial,
people all over Egypt remain glued to their radios and televisions. They can’t
wait for any shred of news that emerges from the courtroom during
intermissions. Together with his two sons and former interior minister Habib
al-Adly, the ousted Egyptian president has pleaded innocent to charges of
corruption and of ordering police to open fire on protesters during the
uprising that overthrew his 30-year reign early this year. Putting Mubarak on
trial was a central demand of the revolution. Now many Egyptians are wondering
whether the defendants might actually go free. “We never imagined the
prosecution would be this sloppy and unserious,” says Gamal Eid, a human-rights
lawyer involved in the case. “They aren’t looking for justice.”
The
public prosecutor’s office opened its case by calling to the stand a succession
of senior police and intelligence officers—and each witness’s testimony seemed
to strengthen the case for the defense. One by one, they steadfastly maintained
that there had been no orders to shoot—regardless of the fact that hundreds of
Egyptians were killed and thousands more seriously injured. On the contrary,
the prosecution witnesses insisted, police were instructed not to carry their
personal weapons. One officer testified that he had been told to deal with
demonstrators “as your brothers.”
The
testimony infuriated victims’ families and their lawyers—and their anger only
grew when Mubarak supporters circumvented the proceedings’ supposedly tight
security and managed to unfurl banners inside the courtroom proclaiming the
toppled dictator’s innocence. The sessions have repeatedly been interrupted by
outbursts and scuffles, while grim jokes circulated on Twitter claiming that
evidence would soon be presented to show that the hundreds of dead protesters
had actually killed themselves. Legal observers and human-rights groups are
questioning the competence and trustworthiness of the public prosecutor’s
office; they cite its record of collusion with Egypt’s intelligence services
and its longtime reluctance to prosecute politically sensitive cases. The
office didn’t even begin investigating the protesters’ deaths until more than a
month after Mubarak had stepped down as president.
The
prosecution’s case is full of holes. Officers who are accused of shooting
demonstrators were never suspended from their positions, providing ample
opportunities to intimidate witnesses and tamper with evidence. Recordings of
phone calls and footage from security cameras have somehow been “lost” by the
Interior Ministry and the Army. In fact, one of the first day’s witnesses is
already serving a two-year prison sentence for destroying evidence in the case.
Another witness was briefly detained today for alleged perjury after he
contradicted information he had previously given prosecutors.
While
the trial goes on inside the building formerly known the Mubarak Police
Academy, phalanxes of riot police stand outside, on the alert for
confrontations between the deposed dictator’s supporters and friends and
relatives of the slain protesters. Groups calling themselves “Mubarak’s Sons”
and “We’re Sorry, Mr. President” have picketed the trial since the start and
have engaged in running battles with the aggrieved families of dead
demonstrators.
The
trial is expected to take months. Mubarak’s chief lawyer, Fareed el-Deeb, has
become famous over the years as a defender of controversial figures, including
several Mubarak critics who were targeted by the regime; he’s asking to call
thousands of witnesses for Mubarak’s defense. Among them are the dictator’s
former spy chief, Omar Suleyman, and his former defense minister, Field Marshal
Mohamed Tantawi, who now heads of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed
Forces. Both will appear next week, in court sessions that will be entirely
closed to the press and the public.
In
the end, Eid predicts, he and other lawyers for the victims’ families are the
ones who will have to make the case against Mubarak. The evidence is there, Eid
says. “It’s difficult, but not impossible. We haven’t lost hope.” After that,
the verdict will be up to just one man: under Egypt’s legal system there is no
jury, and instead the judge acts with broad powers, questioning witnesses and
ultimately deciding how much weight to give each one’s testimony. No one can be
sure the 83-year-old Mubarak will live that long. Since the trial began he’s
spent every session on a gurney. His lawyers say he’s too sick to be in jail.
At present, mounting frustration over the trial seems likely to result in a big
turnout at anti-Mubarak protests this coming Friday. The former president was
brought to trial only after months of public pressure. Now many Egyptians
continue to wonder whether the country’s interim authorities really intend to
hold him accountable, or if they’re only staging on a riveting bit of theater.
-This article was published in The Daily Beast on 07/09/2011
- Ursula Lindsey is a Cairo-based reporter and writer
- Ursula Lindsey is a Cairo-based reporter and writer
No comments:
Post a Comment