Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court ruled on Monday that the head of the Egyptian Drug Authority (EDA) has no constitutional power to amend the country’s drug schedules, a decision that could allow some convicts to seek reduced sentences or annulled verdicts.
In its judgment, the court said the Anti-Drug Law grants the power to amend narcotics schedules exclusively to the health minister, not the EDA chief, and declared the regulator’s prior scheduling decisions “as if they never existed.”
The case arose after a criminal panel at the Court of Cassation challenged the constitutionality of EDA Decision No. 600 of 2023, which reclassified methamphetamine from Schedule II to Schedule I, increasing associated penalties. The panel referred the matter to the Supreme Constitutional Court, citing a conflict with the Anti-Drug Law.
The court held that the EDA chief had “assumed a power that is not his,” stressing that while the authority regulates pharmacies and the circulation of medicines, “defining what is a narcotic and criminalizing it” is “a grave matter affecting citizens’ freedoms” and was explicitly assigned by law to the health minister.
In a statement obtained by Al Manassa, the court said the ruling does not mean offenders will automatically escape punishment but rather restores constitutional and legislative order. It added that criminal courts, the Court of Cassation, and the prosecutor general will implement the judgment in accordance with the constitution and Articles 48 and 49 of the Supreme Constitutional Court Law.
Article 48 makes the court’s rulings final and not subject to appeal. Article 49 governs their effect, stipulating that in criminal cases, judgments issued under provisions later ruled unconstitutional are treated as though they never occurred.
A senior judicial source, who serves as a chief judge at a criminal court and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the ruling is likely to upend many convictions in drug cases, potentially leading to acquittals or reduced sentences.
Speaking to Al Manassa, the judge said that “In criminal cases specifically, when the provision is void, it invalidates all procedures taken on its basis,” stressing that the invalidity extends across all stages of a case.
The practical impact may vary. Defendants convicted for substances added to drug schedules solely through the EDA chief’s now-invalid decisions could argue that their conduct was not legally criminalized at the time. Others convicted for substances that were already listed but reclassified into harsher categories — including methamphetamine — may seek resentencing under the lower penalties that applied before the reclassification.
There is no public database indicating how many convictions over the past six years relied on decisions issued by the EDA chief.
The criminal court judge told Al Manassa the ruling could apply even to final judgments that have exhausted all avenues of appeal. “People will get out, or at least be retried,” he said, because constitutional rulings apply retroactively in criminal matters when the penal provision is deemed void.
