As I envision Egypt’s future, I commit myself to presenting ideas that contribute to its construction and to a successful justice system, which is the heart of that future. Without it, a nation cannot stand.

Achieving justice is the ultimate end, relying on qualitative and intellectual reforms of judicial institutions and law enforcement agencies, namely the police, which are its means.

Justice is one of the essential pillars of the modern civil state and opens up horizons of knowledge through education and culture.

A failed, slow, or selective justice that makes citizens feel oppressed is contradictory to the concept of a modern civil state and its institutions.

To achieve it, we must sincerely introspect.

A state of law and justice is founded on the separation of powers, and the protection of human rights and minorities. Justice can only be achieved by firmly establishing the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and when all authorities are subject to the law.

Legislation can only express the national will when it respects the rights of all citizens. The executive authority cannot function when it is an oppressive entity that neither respects the law nor ensures citizens’ rights.

The principles of legitimacy and constitutionality presume the existence of an independent and impartial judiciary, with the rule of law and the judicial system playing a central role in enhancing and safeguarding the state and its citizens.

Regarding citizens’ rights, these do not consist only of procedural rights, such as the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court, established by law and subject to predefined procedures but also other rights that should never be violated, even in emergencies and exceptional situations.

These include the right to safety from torture, degradation, forced disappearance, and arbitrary detention.

There has been severe confusion between the concepts of “state power” and “state despotism.” This confusion led some institutions to believe that the concept of state power is synonymous with despotism, ignoring the fact that democracy requires the state be strong enough to protect democracy itself and ensure security, ultimately in the service of justice.

A strong state implies a strong police force as the state’s arm in enforcing the law, along with administrative bodies that progress to accommodate modern conditions.

This necessitates freeing these bodies from the enduring effects of the despotic philosophy deeply which is deeply rooted in them, without their knowledge.

This can only be achieved by purifying legislation from anything that could form and protect despotism and by enhancing scientific efficiency.

Some may argue that the independence of the judiciary needs no reaffirmation as it is enshrined in the current, as well as previous constitutions.

I emphasize here, however, the functional independence, as opposed to the merely formal. The issue lies in the fact that some executive authorities do not have a clear understanding of the Constitution’s philosophy.

While judges, lawyers, and public prosecution members enjoy the same human rights as any other person, they must be protected specifically, as they guarantee others’ enjoyment of these rights. If judges cannot assess facts and apply the law nationally and internationally, the judicial system itself becomes defective.

If lawyers cannot communicate freely with their clients, the principle of equal opportunities and the right to defense in the same way for both parties in criminal proceedings will not be realized. However, the special protection that judges, lawyers, and public prosecution members must enjoy comes with special responsibilities on their part.

The principle of judicial independence does not allow them to exceed their authority to achieve personal gains or infringe upon individuals’ rights. Therefore, judges must not decide cases based on ideological or religious inclinations, but rather on the facts and their legal interpretation.

According to Counselor Hassan Badrawi, since the establishment of the national courts in Egypt in 1883, until 1994, all the changes in this judiciary have been mainly quantitative improvements; opportunities have not yet arisen for the necessary qualitative changes that have been urgently needed for the past two decades and even more so now.

The quantitative changes have not alleviated the burdens imposed on the judiciary, which have been greater than the quantitative improvements it has undergone.

It is evident that the gap is widening between the improvement rate in judicial performance and the increasing caseload.

Moving from general to specific aspects of the application of justice, let us consider the example of the economy.

Throughout recent history, Egypt has witnessed significant economic and social transformations requiring legislative action for their realization. From an agricultural system based on broad land ownership to integration into the English economic system, to an agricultural-industrial system, to a purely Egyptian capitalist system, and then to a comprehensive system based on central planning with diminished individual ownership, to a new capitalist system with openness to the global order and a desire for public sector privatization.

The choice of a liberal and open economy corresponds with Egypt’s experiences in recent decades and aligns with the current global circumstances that Egypt faces. It also aligns deeply with the belief held by the Egyptian national character in the value of individual work and its results.

However, this same national character that has lived under a centralized government for over seven thousand years still naturally awaits the activity of the state in this field.

I envision and anticipate a role for the state within the framework of social liberalism approved by the Constitution. Nevertheless, this role should not involve direct economic activities but should rather focus on guiding, opening, organizing, and protecting these activities.

Establishing overarching rules to limit the state’s role in the economy also means putting in place rules that empower individual economic activities.

This includes streamlining administrative procedures, relying on post-auditing and control rather than requiring prior permissions and licenses, utilizing tax and customs exemptions to encourage investment, and playing a supportive role in establishing information databases to serve individual economic activities.

Additionally, it necessitates a fresh and comprehensive review of many aspects of the judiciary, mandating it with responsibilities for the future in its formation, evaluation, technology, and a review of its many and various laws.

All of this should be linked to the idea of the economic return of justice to society.

Since economic and individual freedom are what people desire, it is essential to remove all legal barriers that undermine the exercise of this freedom. To this end, there should be a focus on achieving speed and efficiency in resolving economic disputes and preventing state agencies from pressuring business owners to serve political interests or terrorizing them.

It also requires elevating the performance standard of arbitration institutions to levels beyond Egypt’s currently lacking level of expertise in this regard, enabling it to compete with advanced countries.

If this economic orientation is the goal of the legislation, it must consider removing all administrative obstacles to individual economic activities, which lead to mistakes for employees, frustration for business owners, and disruption for all investment calculations.

A distinctive characteristic of the Egyptian national character is its tendency to maneuver around the law. Consequently, the legal code has often been unclear and ambiguous to allow for novel interpretations.

We saw this with the tax law before 2011, which the state subsequently reversed due to political dissent, despite its success and the mutual trust it built between the taxpayer and the state.

For a very long time, the relationship between citizens and the state has been characterized by apprehension and mistrust, which was reflected in legislation across various fields, regarding citizens with an aura of doubt and suspicion.

Now, we must ensure that all legislation is free from this spirit and built fundamentally on respect for and trust in the citizen.