In a chilling start to the new year, Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) delivered a ruling on Saturday, January 3, that effectively closes the door on judicial independence in the Arab world’s most populous nation. Led by Chief Justice Boulos Fahmy, the Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the 2015 Anti-Terrorism Law, declaring that the state’s draconian definitions of “terrorism” are not only constitutional but are, in fact, mandated by international law.
This is not merely a legal technicality; it is the final act in a decade-long consolidation of power that has transformed Egypt’s judiciary from a potential check on executive authority into a reliable partner of the security state. By validating broad, nebulous definitions of terror—definitions that encompass “harming national unity” and “damaging the economy”—the Court has handed President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s regime a blank check to criminalize dissent.
By validating broad, nebulous definitions of terror, the Court has handed President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s regime a blank check to criminalize dissent.
The brilliance of the SCC’s ruling lies in its sophistry. Chief Justice Fahmy, a Sisi appointee, did not justify the law solely on the grounds of domestic security. Instead, he cited Egypt’s ratification of international treaties, specifically the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and the Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism.
The Court argued that these treaties oblige Egypt to criminalize terrorism in “all its forms.” However, this interpretation conveniently ignores the safeguards embedded in international law. UNTOC is designed to combat mafias seeking financial gain, explicitly distinguishing them from political groups. By conflating political activism with organized crime, the Egyptian court has weaponized the language of international cooperation to shield a domestic crackdown. It is a dangerous precedent: an authoritarian regime using the United Nations’ own statutes to justify the suppression of its citizens.
The law upheld by the Court, Law No. 94 of 2015, contains definitions of terrorism so vague they would be laughable if the consequences were not so dire. Under Article 2, a “terrorist act” includes any use of force or threat aimed at “disturbing public order,” “endangering the interests of society,” or “harming national unity.”
In practice, this means that “terrorism” in Egypt no longer requires a bomb or a gun. It requires only a voice. A labor strike that “damages the national economy” is terrorism. A Facebook post criticizing the government’s handling of inflation “harms national unity.”
The ruling also implicitly validates the state’s predatory economic measures. Under the parallel “Terrorist Entities Law” (Law No. 8 of 2015), the state has the power to seize the assets of designated terrorists. In the midst of Egypt’s severe economic crisis, this has evolved into a mechanism for wealth extraction, allowing the government to confiscate funds from businesses and individuals accused of “providing support” to banned entities—support that can be as minor as a social media post.
The Trump administration and Congress must recognize that the “rule of law” in Egypt has become a tool of repression.
For the United States, this ruling complicates an already fragile relationship. Egypt remains a cornerstone of regional security, anchored by the “Cold Peace” with Israel. However, the stability Sisi promises is illusory. By criminalizing the entire spectrum of political expression—from Islamists to secular students to economic protesters—the regime is eliminating the safety valves of society.
The Trump administration and Congress must recognize that the “rule of law” in Egypt has become a tool of repression. When the State Department calls for human rights improvements, Cairo can now point to its Supreme Court and claim it is merely enforcing the law—a law it claims is mandated by the UN.
The Supreme Constitutional Court was once seen as the last bastion of judicial independence in Egypt.With the January 3 ruling, that fortress has fallen. The state now has unlimited, unchallengeable power to define its enemies. In Sisi’s Egypt, anyone can be a terrorist, and thanks to the Supreme Court, no one can argue otherwise.
Published originally on January 5, 2026.
