Egypt’s Prosecutor General Mohamed Shawky has ordered that people with final criminal convictions for alimony evasion be placed on travel ban and arrival watchlists. The move blocks them from leaving the country and allows for their arrest if they return from abroad.
In a statement, the Public Prosecution explained that the primary goal of the decision is to “safeguard the rights of judgment creditors, particularly those related to the rights of wives and children,” which are guaranteed and protected by law. In a direct warning to those convicted, it urged them to pay court-ordered amounts promptly and signalled that tougher legal action would be taken against those who continue to evade their obligations.
Who will be banned from travel
The measure will not apply to those given custodial sentences for refusing to pay alimony through family courts, according to Abdel Fattah Yehia, a human rights lawyer at the Centre for Egyptian Women Legal Assistance (CEWLA). He told Al Manassa that the decision only affects those sentenced in criminal courts under Penal Code amendments introduced six years ago. Those amendments created a penalty of “criminal imprisonment” for husbands who repeatedly fail to pay alimony for their wives and children.
Under the amendments, anyone against whom an enforceable family court ruling has been issued - and who refuses to pay despite having the means to do so for three months after being formally notified - faces a penalty of up to one year in prison, a fine of no more than 5,000 Egyptian pounds (about $95), or both.
Filing a criminal case under the amendment is depends on a complaint or request from the victim. Furthermore, a conviction results in the suspension of the individual’s access to government services until they pay the arrears due to the judgment creditor or Nasser Social Bank, as the case may be.
This same provision served as the basis for the Ministry of Justice’s decision last month to suspend government services for those convicted of alimony evasion. This suspension applies to a long list of services provided by 11 ministerial sectors and government bodies, including the ministries of supply and local development, as well as the Real Estate Registry Department of the Ministry of Justice.
Obstacles and loopholes
Human rights lawyer Abdel Fattah Yehia warned of a “procedural loophole” that may limit the impact of the Prosecutor General’s decision in practice. Explaining the nuance, Yehia said that under the current legal text, the travel ban and arrival watchlist inclusion will only apply to those who have received judgments from a misdemeanor court.
He emphasized that the decision will not apply to those against whom standard alimony arrears judgments are issued by the family court, which typically sentence a husband to only one month in prison.
The lawyer described the decision as a positive gesture and a deterrent administrative measure within the Prosecutor General’s powers, but he noted that most women do not resort to the criminal judiciary in alimony cases. Instead, they often prefer to file a “debt-imprisonment case” before family courts due to the complex procedures involved in filing a criminal case.
Yehia added that these procedures are not well-known to many and that the application of the law lacks clarity, making criminal rulings in alimony cases very rare.
Regarding these complexities, the specialized legal newsletter “Lawyers Without Restrictions” previously confirmed that the current text does not allow a victim to resort to criminal imprisonment directly. Instead, procedures must first be exhausted before family courts by filing an imprisonment case to prove the convicted person’s refusal to pay despite their ability and after being warned.
Initiating a criminal case is also subject to a strict time limit under Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires a complaint to be filed within three months of the victim becoming aware of the crime. This suggests that understanding the law requires a comprehensive view of the legal system to ensure a case is not rejected for being filed prematurely or through a path not prescribed by law.
Yehia highlighted another procedural challenge that hinders action against evaders located abroad who are targeted by arrival watchlists, specifically the “crisis of judicial notifications.” He explained that obtaining a criminal judgment requires legally notifying the individual of the case, which presents a severe procedural difficulty because it is often impossible to notify persons even within the country, let alone those residing abroad.
Demands to simplify application
To make the Prosecutor General’s decision effectively enforceable, Yehia called for definitive, simplified procedures to provide much-needed clarity for litigants. He argued that this would end the current confusion among legal professionals, litigants, and prosecutors regarding implementation mechanisms and the conditions for the notification of judgments.
Finally, Yehia warned against good legal texts turning into “ink on paper” due to a lack of practical application. He stated that the problem often lies in drafting legislative articles that are theoretically excellent but collide with complex procedural difficulties when applied on the ground. He noted that this reflects the same challenges currently experienced in the application of laws related to depriving women of their inheritance.
