Attalah released after 7 hours; discovers year-long prison sentence issued in absentia
Mada Masr Editor-in-Chief Lina Attalah was released by the New Cairo Misdemeanor Court after seven hours in detention following a ruling fining her 3 million Egyptian pounds ($56,000), ordering the closure of the website and confiscation of its equipment, over charges of operating a website without a license.
Earlier Tuesday, the court’s Ninth Circuit issued the ruling against Attalah in Case No. 11743 of 2026 at the first hearing, imposing the maximum penalty under the Press and Media Regulation Law.
The court also ordered the independent outlet’s editor-in-chief detained pending payment of the fine. Security forces arrested her inside the courtroom as members of her defense team chanted “Invalid, invalid.”
The court later agreed to accept half the fine, with the remainder to be paid two days later. However, the court later altered its decision, demanding the fine to be paid in full. Despite the fulfillment of this updated request, the court still withheld Attalah in the courthouse for four more hours.
Attalah’s defense team is expected to appeal the ruling. Lawyer Hassan Al-Azhari told Al Manassa earlier Tuesday that an appeal would suspend enforcement of the ruling, provided the full fine was paid. He said the defense team would immediately begin appeal proceedings.
According to Mada Masr, while Attalah was completing the procedures for her release, she was surprised to discover that a year-long prison sentence had been issued against her in absentia in 2024 in a case involving charges of publishing false news and operating a website without a license. The outlet said the defense had filed an objection to the verdict, with a hearing scheduled for Nov. 11.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the defense team requested an adjournment to submit documents proving that applications for a license had been filed with the Supreme Council for Media Regulation and to call witnesses. The court president rejected the requests, saying the “case is simple” and did not require a postponement, according to Al-Azhari.
As the defense team insisted on its requests, the judge appointed another lawyer, whom Attalah refused to accept as her representative. The judge refused to place her objection on the record before issuing the ruling, prompting anger and disbelief among those present.
Mada Masr quoted Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights Executive Director Hossam Bahgat, who attended the hearing, as saying that the presiding judge began recording the court-appointed lawyer’s requests himself, before the lawyer had spoken. The judge then began reading the guilty verdict as members of the defense team shouted their objections.
Bahgat said that immediately after Attalah received the maximum penalty, security personnel surrounded her, lifted her off the floor and carried her out of the courtroom.
Al-Azhari previously told Mada Masr that the penalty for the charge against Attalah ranges from 1 million to 3 million pounds ($18,000 to $54,000). Article 105 of the Press and Media Regulation Law also allows courts to order the closure of a website and confiscate equipment used in the alleged offense, with fines doubled in cases of repeat violations.
Court security also barred several journalists and supporters of Attalah from entering, including Egyptian Journalists Syndicate member Eman Ouf. The presiding judge also barred representatives of the European Union and diplomats from Germany, France, Austria, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, and Sweden, in addition to envoys from Norway, Switzerland, Britain, and Canada, insisting that only Attalah and her defense team could attend.
In recent years, Mada Masr has sought a license to operate under the Press and Media Regulation Law. It applied to the Supreme Council for Media Regulation in 2018 but received no response. After the law’s executive regulations were issued in 2020, the outlet submitted a new application, which also went unanswered.
Mada Masr learned during Attalah’s 2022 summons for questioning that the Supreme Council for Media Regulation had rejected its application without formally notifying the outlet or providing adequate grounds.
While the outlet mounted a legal challenge against the rejection and the council’s failure to provide notice or grounds, an additional licensing request submitted in 2023 remains unanswered.