Parliament Diaries| Old Rent Law: How the No vote turned into a Yes

Observing three sessions from my seat in the press room, I followed the passing of amendments to the Old Rent Laws (Law 49 of 1977 and Law 136 of 1981), which played out like a well-orchestrated drama: a conventional opening followed by a surge of resistance, a dramatic peak in the second session, and an anticlimactic resolution in the third and final session.

On Monday, June 30, the House of Representatives rose up in defense of the people. Parliament halted debate of the old rent law in protest over a lack of key information and the absence of government plans for tenants facing eviction from their homes once their open-ended rental agreements were terminated after seven years. Confronted with vague plans, the House decided to postpone discussions until the government provided necessary data on the number of original tenants and first-generation heirs.

The following day, Tuesday’s session brought hope for tenants fearful of losing their homes, especially after parliamentary sources confirmed a likely exemption for original tenants and their spouses, allowing rental contracts to continue past the seven-year ultimatum/transition.

But hope quickly collapsed into defeat. Objections turned into acquiescence, after the government submitted a single amendment to Article 8, governing compensation for affected tenants. This amendment committed the government to providing an alternative at least one year before the end of the transition period, and applies to residential and non-residential leases signed before Law 4 of 1996.

Act One: Outdated Data

The draft law was added to the agenda of the June 30 general session. Majority Leader Abdel Hadi El-Qasabi signaled possible changes to the bill, stating, “I agree in principle with the draft law, but reserve the right to intervene.”

Echoing him, MP Ahmed El-Segini, chair of the Local Administration Committee, said “In the state of June 30, led by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, no citizen, be it owner or tenant, will be harmed by this law. I can’t imagine a state building new cities would allow such concerns to persist.”

Opposition concerns

Opposition MPs highlighted how the law would impact housing rights and social stability. MP Ahmed El-Sharkawy emphasized that housing security should come first, supporting rent adjustments without terminating contracts. MP Abdel-Moneim Imam, head of the Justice Party, called the law “social punishment,” saying it sent tenants a message: “Die within seven years or get thrown onto the street.”

MP Ahmed Belal El-Borolossy  of the Tagammu Party linked the law to government economic policies saying “This law favors new landlords and real estate investment companies whose names are plastered across streets and buildings downtown.” He also accused the government of “focusing solely on property taxes to pay off debt interest, an issue which we have repeatedly warned of.”

MP Diaa El-Din Dawood appealed to the conscience of majority MPs, urging them to reject the bill “This law tells tenants to hold their breath in fear for seven years.”

Tagammu’s parliamentary leader, MP Atef Maghawry, questioned the government's legitimacy “Are you a rogue offshoot or a coup against previous governments?” The majority bloc erupted. Parliamentary and Legal Affairs Minister Mahmoud Fawzy responded “It is utterly disgraceful to insult a state institution like that, especially when we respect all views. Just as MPs represent both tenants and landlords, the government also serves both.” Fawzy requested that the alleged offensive remarks be struck from the records.

The data dilemma and the no-plan plan

Rejection also emerged from outside the traditional opposition. MP Hisham Hilal, head of the Modern Egypt Party bloc, asked, “Does the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics/CAPMAS have data on the number of original tenants and their heirs?”

CAPMAS head Khairat Barakat responded that, according to the 2017 census, there were 1.6 million tenants and 3.019 million rental units.

Fawzy promised to present a more detailed statement at Tuesday’s session, prompting a rebuke from the Speaker “You should have come prepared with all your documents.”

From the start of committee meetings on May 6 and throughout the consultation sessions, it became evident that recent statistics on the types, incomes and ages of tenants were not available. Extant data goes back to the 2017 census.

Given this lack of information and unclear government plans for affected tenants, the Speaker postponed debate to Tuesday, requesting a fresh report before the session detailing the number of original tenants, first-generation inheritors, and the government’s transition strategy.

The Speaker also requested a list of lands that could be allocated for alternative housing, especially in governorates without desert expansion options.

Act Two: Parliament Rise Up

Tuesday’s session began at 11 am. I expected the parliamentary affairs minister or CAPMAS chair to present the requested data. Instead, the Speaker invited MPs to discuss the draft law in principle without addressing the data.

I asked MP Diaa El-Din Dawood whether he had received the data. He said that Fawzy had held a meeting with several MPs before the session but shared no new information. MP Atef Maghawry also confirmed receiving nothing.

Postponement after approval

The session proceeded as usual until the Speaker called a vote on the draft in principle. MPs approved it. Gebaly announced that the government had submitted documents at 9 am, but figures on original tenants and their heirs were “missing.”

The head of CAPMAS responded with figures based on the assumption that any tenant over 60 years old during the 2017 census was an original tenant. “At that time there were 1.6 million tenants and 409,276 original tenants,” he said.

Gebaly didn’t question the figures. He was about to launch into clause-by-clause debate when Dawood insisted on the need to examine the numbers. “Does the government have land for these people? Will the next four budgets include housing funds?” He scoffed at the Housing Minister’s promise of 5 million units “Are they the ones that cost 30 million from businessman Naguib Sawiris or the ones located in Mivida?”, referring to high-end residential compound.

Dawood’s sarcastic reference to luxury housing was a veiled criticism of the government’s audacity in potentially evicting hundreds of thousands of tenants affected by the law’s amendments. He highlighted the significant gap in the Egyptian real estate market between the limited purchasing power of most Egyptians and the astronomical prices of housing units in luxury compounds.

Dawood demanded updated data and permission to study and analyze it, to which Gebaly replied, “They don’t have it; that’s all they have available.”

The majority leader intervened to ask local development minister Manal Awad about plans for affected tenants. She gave a vague reply, citing lands owned by governorates, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Religious Endowments.

MPs from each party took the floor after her. MP Hani Abaza of the Wafd Party decried the lack of vision, arguing that the law could not be passed in the absence of data and plans. MP Ayman Abou El-Ela of the Reform and Development Party said, “We absolutely cannot approve this law.”

MPs from Homeland Defenders, Congress, Justice, Tagammu, and independents echoed the concern. When it came to Nation’s Future, Majority Leader El-Qasabi said, “We seek only citizens’ welfare. Based on what I’ve heard from MPs, I request a postponement of this debate.”

Gebaly then postponed the discussion, criticizing the government for “coming to Parliament unprepared.” Members applauded, and chants of “Long Live Egypt!” erupted from the hall.

Over Monday’s and Tuesday’s sessions, Parliament appeared to stand with the people, publicly rebuking the government’s lack of vision and restoring hope to tenants, especially after Housing Committee Chair Mohamed Atiya El-Fayoumi supported the proposal to allow original tenants to remain. Optimism grew that even first-generation heirs might be spared the nightmare of eviction.

Act Three: The Twist of Defeat

I expected Wednesday’s session to tackle the critical second clause on contract termination. But to my surprise, no amendments were submitted by the majority or the government.

The pro-government voices that had shined the day before in defense of people’s rights were suddenly silent. Homeland Party MP Ahmed El-Awadi didn’t submit his proposed 10-year transition. El-Fayoumi’s talk of exemptions vanished. The majority leader no longer demanded data or plans.

Only the traditional opposition submitted amendments: deleting the clause (proposed by MPs Maghawry and Mohamed Abdel Alim Dawood), extending the transition (suggested by MP Samira El-Gazzar), and exempting original tenants and spouses (proposed by MPs Sharkawy and Diaa El-Din Dawood). All were rejected.

The opposition walks out

For the first time since this legislative term began in January 2021, opposition MPs walked out of a general session after the majority approved the transitional-period clause.

Leading the walkout were Dawood, Sharkawy, Ahmed Farghaly, Tagammu MPs led by Maghawry, Abdel-Moneim Imam, Nabil Askar, Sahar El-Bashir, Youssef El-Husseiny, Mohamed Abdel Alim Dawood, Hani Khedr, and Zeinab El-Salimi. They were later joined by Social Democratic Party MPs and MP Ahmed Darag.

They gathered in the Pharaonic Hall and issued a statement declaring that they had tried and failed to produce legislation that fairly protected both landlords and tenants.

Everyone was astonished by the sudden dramatic shift: from the peak of insistence on clear data, information, and plans, and the championing of rights for the original tenant based on the principle that “a contract binds the contracting parties,” to complete surrender to the draft law and the government’s vision.

The course of the three sessions may not explain everything, but behind-the-scenes whispers offer clues. On day one, insiders noted that MPs had received “no instructions yet.” On day two, there was pessimism, followed by cautious optimism after several sources reported "a phone call" prompting the postponement. The final decision, however, aligned with government policy, reportedly made after a number of calls between parliamentary leaders and the government.

The lone amendment

Debate proceeded smoothly. The majority ignored the transition period, rent adjustments, vacancy rules, or any distinction between tenants working abroad and those with alternative housing.

Focus shifted to Article 8, one of the bill’s core clauses. It allows affected tenants or heirs to request state-provided housing before the lease ends, provided they pledge to vacate the original unit. Priority goes to vulnerable groups, especially original tenants and their parents.

The government added one amendment: the state must allocate and deliver alternative housing to original tenants or spouses at least one year before eviction.

The majority leader called this a reassurance to ordinary citizens. But questions remain. We still don’t know how many qualify, what plans exist to build units, or how tenants unable to afford higher rents in the interim will be supported. Housing Minister Sherif El-Sherbiny simply said 238,000 units exist under the Armed Forces and the New Urban Communities Authority, offering rent-to-own, leasing, or mortgage options.

The law passed, but the plans remain missing. Social media is flooded with unanswered questions. Civil society and MPs are appealing to the president not to ratify it.

I saw in the eyes of some opposition MPs a kind of defeat I’ve never seen before, even after past legislative losses. And I saw the majority pass the law, but there was no hint of satisfaction in their eyes. The mission was completed, but suspicion and doubt clouded every face.