Forty detainees, seven of whom were tried in absentia as they reside outside Egypt, all members of the Muslim Brotherhood faced charges of terrorism, money laundering and belonging to an outlawed organization.
These charges were dropped four times by civilian courts, which found them to be "groundless, intentionally fabricated by state security officers, and politically motivated with no substantial evidence whatsoever."
While civilian courts ordered the immediate release of all detainees, the ruling was ignored by the government and President Hosni Mubarak ordered the case transferred to a military tribunal.
But even the military tribunal, whose verdicts are traditionally harsh, dropped the money laundering and terrorism charges; they did however find the men "guilty" of belonging to an outlawed organization.
The court's verdict was purely political, as suggested by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Arab Commission for Human Rights.
The final session was adjourned twice with no legal justification, while the political motives remained patently clear. The regime had waited till the conclusion of the municipal elections, so that if the Muslim Brotherhood had decided to up the ante prior or during the elections and other political events, that would mean the defendants facing the military tribunal would be handed down harsh sentences, which is exactly what happened.
Imprisonment sentences further stressed the political nature of the case. And so was the acquittal of 35 percent of the defendants – a quota that's always found innocent in previous military tribunals – so as to give the verdict a legitimate more palatable façade.
Similarly, while the rest faced the same charges, they received different imprisonment sentences varying between three, five, seven and 10 years in prison.
Those who were sentenced to 10 years are the ones tried in absentia, simply because the political context in Egypt would not allow for the imprisonment of civilian opposition members for an entire decade. Defendants who are also university professors were sentenced to three years to avoid, it seems, further confrontation between the regime and academics.
This verdict was only made possible by the Egyptian regime capitalizing on international silence regarding its assault on human rights.
This is the election year in the United States and everybody is busy with domestic politics and ready to turn a blind eye toward the crackdown of U.S.'s strategic ally in the Middle East on civil liberties and human rights.
The EU parliament has condemned Egypt's human rights record, but has failed to act according to its resolution, and has remained shamefully silent regarding the assault.
But the domestic, regional and global consequences of this verdict could not be overlooked, both due to the importance of Egypt and the importance of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Egypt is currently experiencing an unprecedented era of instability with mounting numbers of riots, strikes, demonstrations and recently, calls for civil disobedience.
Deteriorating economic conditions accompanied by occluded political channels and rough security retaliation to street activism has dramatically increased public discontent. Egyptians, who have been for long afraid to stand up for their rights, feel now that they have nothing to lose with the regime failing to provide for the basic food needs.
Aware of its eroding legitimacy and popularity, the regime has been resorting to suppressive measures more than ever before. Four independent newspaper editors have been sentenced to prison over "insulting ruling figures."
A strong opposition candidate, such as former presidential candidate Ayman Nour, is behind bars serving a long sentence, while the constitution has been dramatically amended to curb freedom of expression, undermine judicial independence and erode civil liberties.
The Muslim Brotherhood could not, and will not, remain silent with its leaders being sentenced to prison by a political verdict of an unconstitutional military tribunal. The Egyptian economy will be further harmed by the confiscation of a group of companies owned by the detainees (even though all the money laundering charges have been dropped.)
The verdict is likely to have a negative effect on the moderation of political Islam in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood is a mainstream moderate movement with proven power to overshadow radical movements and act as a safeguard against extremist streams.
Attempting to undermine it means that the regime is compromising strategic national and international interests of protecting domestic and regional stability for short-term political gains of securing a smooth transfer of power from the 80-year-old Mubarak to his younger son Gamal, in what's known in Egypt as the succession plan.
With eroding popularity, the plan requires the absence of strong opposition groups from the political spectrum.
But this is definitely miscalculated adventure. The mass political weight of the Brotherhood (a recent study assessed their membership to be 2.5 million people) is not undermined by the absence of a handful of leaders.
The absence of Khayrat el-Shater, the Muslim Brotherhood's deputy chairman who was sentenced to seven years, from the political scene will rather lead to further complications. Known to be one of the group's strongest pragmatic leaders, el-Shater has always been able to reach agreements with different powers in Egypt including the regime to serve the country's stability. The decision of keeping him behind bars for seven years would intensify conflicts between the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, hence leading to further instability.
Such a crackdown on the Brotherhood also empowers the radicals' sentiment.
Radical groups have constantly criticized the Brotherhood for its moderate orientation and gradual approach, deeming its decision to engage in politics as fruitless. Such clampdowns only propagate these ideas, which consequently attract more supporters for absolute blockage of peaceful and gradual reform channels.
This is why pressure to bring justice to detained Muslim Brotherhood leaders has become a question of ethics and principles not just for the group's members, but also for journalists and other activists. Needless to say, violation of justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and the suppression of moderates only leads to empowering radicals.
The court decision could still be appealed. The court that will investigate the case is also a military tribunal that lacks basic guarantees for a fair trial, including independence and immunity. Yet political pressure could lead to changing the verdicts' direction and release of all political detainees.
--
Ibrahim el-Houdaiby is a board member of ikhwanweb.com, the Muslim Brotherhood's official English Web site. A graduate of the American University in Cairo, El-Houdaiby holds a BA in political science, and is working toward an MA in Islamic Studies at the High Institute of Islamic Studies.