Egyptian blogger Maikel Nabil, 26, has just passed the 120th day of a hunger
strike that may claim his life.
One of the early voices in Tahrir Square
– inspiring the Egyptian-Arab Spring – Nabil became the first political prisoner
in the post- Mubarak era simply for exercising his fundamental
rights.
While he initially affirmed the notion that “the Egyptian army
and the people are of one hand” – that the two were working together for
freedom, democracy and human rights for Egypt – he later wrote on his blog that
the army and the people were “no longer of one hand” when he saw the army
repressing protesters. For this act of defiance he was charged with “insulting
the Egyptian military” and convicted last April in a sham legal proceeding
before a military tribunal. This past week in a re-trial – amidst the renewed
brutality in Tahrir Square – his conviction was upheld.
The verdict came
in a hearing that had been postponed several times after Nabil earlier rejected
an offer of freedom in exchange for a confession of his alleged crime. The
tribunal’s decision has since been condemned by Reporters without Borders and
other NGOs, while the United States State Department reported that the US
continues to “urge the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to reconsider this
verdict,” adding, “We call on the government to protect the universal rights of
all Egyptian citizens, including the right to free expression.”
Upon
hearing the result, Nabil announced that his hunger strike would now be limited
to consumption of water, whereas he had previously been drinking
juice.
Nabil rejects the injustice of his verdict and indeed the
legitimacy of the military tribunal – and rightfully so. Egypt’s ruling military
council has tried 12,000 people in the post- Mubarak era – more civilians than
were tried during all of Mubarak’s rule. Moreover, the tribunal currently boasts
above a 93-percent conviction rate – the remaining percentage can be accounted
for by matters not yet having gone to trial.
Accordingly, not only is
there no presumption of innocence before such tribunals, there is a presumption
of guilt. There is no right to a trial before an independent and impartial
judiciary, as the Egyptian tribunal is an agent of the army. There is no right
to rebut evidence, as no consideration of the evidence is permitted. There is no
right of appeal, regardless of how manifest the errors of law may be. And there
is no right to independent counsel, only to a tribunal-appointed lawyer. At a
prior hearing, Nabil’s lawyer called for Nabil’s confinement in a psychiatric
prison, whose director released Nabil and pronounced him perfectly
sane.
At the request of Nabil’s family, I have been serving as his
international legal counsel and raising his case in international fora –
including at the UN several weeks ago. This past week I again raised his case in
the House of Commons and was informed by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
that he had met the Egyptian ambassador and “expressed Canada’s deep
disappointment and real profound concern over the way this democracy activist
had been treated.”
“We demanded that this individual be let free and
treated fairly in accordance with international standards of freedom and
democracy,” he continued. “As of yet, we have not had a positive response, and
we will continue to look to ensure that justice is done in this
case.”
The rallying cry of Nabil’s Egyptian supporters is “We are all
Maikel Nabil.”
The international community must echo his cry and insist
that justice be served before it is too late.
The writer is a Canadian
member of Parliament and former minister of justice and attorney-general of
Canada. He has acted as counsel for prisoners of conscience all over the
world and is now acting as international legal counsel for Maikel Nabil.