Stopping the broadcast of the trial

The trial of the ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will no longer be broadcast live, as following the culmination of a brief second trial session; the judge ordered the cessation of television broadcasting, thus ending the publicity of a historic event whilst still in its infancy.

It is natural for the images and scenes of the trail of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and the manner in which his life ended, to be still vivid in the memory of those concerned with the trial of the former Egyptian President, whether they are supporters or opponents. Mubarak’s trial is the second drama following that of Saddam Hussein, taking place in front of the eyes of presidents and leaders who fear the same fate.

There are those who were horrified by the idea of a public trial, and public witness sessions. How can one forget Saddam’s defense and his quarrel with the judge? What was even worse was the footage of the public execution of the Iraqi tyrant, an act that had nothing to do with the desired justice, and seemed like revenge taken under the umbrella of a court.

The images of Saddam’s trial will ever provide a base for comparison with that of Mubarak, and will be a source of endless imaginings should other prosecutions take place in the future involving other Arab presidents and leaders. As long as the wave of revolutions remains at its peak, it can sweep up many others.

Without a doubt, the complete chaos that accompanied the first session, which transformed the second trial of an Arab president into an absurd theatrical performance for lawyers to show off, has given reason for the judge to order the cessation of television broadcasts, a decision that was welcomed by the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Such a measure was met with some praise and was justified as necessary to end the dramatic performances of some lawyers who were seduced by the idea of a live broadcast, and thus to ensure a fair trial for Mubarak.

However, in fact the decision to cease the broadcast is not reassuring, nor does it provide guarantees for transparency, particularly with regards to the trial circumstances and the accompanying political mobility of the Egyptian people following the revolution. If anything should be scrutinized at this stage, then it should be the absolute control of the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, whose decisions have raised concern regarding the gains made by the January 25 revolution.

Since the beginning of trial, the way Mubarak has been dealt with has differed considerably [from the way the authorities deal with other citizens]. Thus if Egyptian laws and courtrooms do not befit an ousted president, then they must not befit an ordinary citizen who should feel that he and Mubarak are equal before the law.

Mubarak’s trial directly impacts upon the future of the revolution in Egypt, for it contains rich symbolism with regards to the country’s sincerity in ending the iron fist rule of the security and the police, which still seems to be in place. This was made apparent, particularly when Mubarak’s trial coincided with the questioning of the Egyptian activist and blogger Asma’a Mahfouz, who criticized the performance of the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the judiciary on her Facebook page.

Asma’a Mahfouz is being tried in a military court, whilst Mubarak is tried in a civil one.

On Thursday, a measure was taken in favor of the ousted president, namely the cessation of live television broadcasting. It was also noted that his lawyers as well as his supporters have made their presence felt outside of the courtroom. The Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces must have had a hand in both actions.

Certainly, these all are worrisome signs for the future of the revolution.