On 21 June 2021, the Cairo Criminal Court sentenced Haneen Hossam to 10 years in prison in absentia. The court also sentenced Mawaddah al-Adham and three others, namely Mohamed Abdel-Hamid Zaki, Mohamed Alaa El-Din Ahmed (known as Mohamed Alaa Likee), and Ahmed Salah (known as Ahmed Likee), to 6 years in prison and fined them 200,000 pounds each on charges of human trafficking in Case No. 4917 of 2020, registered at North Cairo Court with No. 2106 of 2020.
Before the final verdict was pronounced, the head of the criminal court held in the Fifth Settlement, Counsellor Mohamed Ahmed El-Gendy, said:
“Social media is a double-edged weapon, which most of us resort to its negative side that destroys values and morals. The blind quest for profit by the companies in charge of social media is governed by the rule that says ‘the end justifies the means. So, vice and immorality were their approaches to achieve high rates of followers, and their goal was to destroy our values.”
Although the wording of the judgment suggests that social media companies were involved in the accusations considered by the court, the judgment was limited to users and employees who do not have influential positions. The judgment also used terms like “vice and immorality” which can be interpreted personally away from the law, which suggests that the judgment did not target a specific crime and did not take into account all parties to the case.
It took 14 months to restrict the freedom of the five defendants with verdicts in two different cases, following their use of social media applications. This is not the first time the five have been tried. They had previously appeared before the Economic Court, which acquitted Haneen Hossam and two others of charges of infringing on family values. Moreover, the prison sentences against Mawaddah al-Adham and Ahmed Sameh were canceled, but they were fined 300,000 pounds each in the same case.
Defendants may not be tried again in a case in which they had already been tried. According to the official papers of the case, the Public Prosecution accused Haneen Hossam and Mawaddah al-Adham in a case in which they used social media applications, which is the same case in which the Economic Court had previously issued a final verdict. Therefore, Hossam and al-Adham may not be tried again before the Criminal Court.
The Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE) considers that the last verdict was issued without the defendants committing a crime in the first place. AFTE’s Legal Aid Unit concluded that there is no conclusive evidence that the two defendants committed any of the charges they faced. The elements of the crime of human trafficking, which both Hossam and al-Adham were charged with, are negated, as they told the Public Prosecution that they published the videos, which the prosecution considered as evidence for committing the crime, with the consent of the victims and their families. This proves that the two defendants did not defraud the victims or force them to do any of the acts stated in the accusations. Accordingly, the conditions of being victims of human trafficking are not met.
How did the case start?
The legal prosecution of Haneen Hossam began after she posted a video clip on Instagram announcing Likee’s need for broadcasters. On 21 April 2020, the Public Prosecutor ordered that Hossam be questioned over what she published on her account on the same day of her arrest. The prosecution faced Hossam with the accusations leveled against her. It also asked the officer who arrested her and conducted the investigation. Then the Public Prosecution decided to detain Hossam, and the next day it remanded her for four days in custody pending investigation.
Brigadier-General Ahmed Taher Nour El-Din, Director of the External Activity Department at the Interior Ministry’s General Administration for the Protection of Morals, conducted investigations into Hossam’s case. He arrested her on 21 April 2020, and he was also a key witness in the case. Nour El-Din submitted his investigation report to the Public Prosecution, which – based on his statements – accused Hossam of the following:
- Making an announcement on social media that draws attention to prostitution as indicated in the investigations.
- Infringing on family principles and values in the Egyptian society by creating online accounts that call for immoral encounters between subscribers.
- Creating, managing, and using a private online account aimed at committing the crime stated in the accusations.
- Joining an organized criminal group for the purposes of human trafficking by dealing with natural persons, who are the victims and the subscribers in her Likee account, taking advantage of their need for money, with the intent of exploiting them in prostitution.
Hossam remained in pretrial detention until a decision to release her was issued on 9 June 2020, but the Public Prosecution ordered her imprisonment again. The Public Prosecution copied the case the next day and referred Hossam, Mawaddah al-Adham, and three others, namely Mohamed Zaki, Mohamed Alaa, and Ahmed Salah, to the Economic Court on charges of infringement of family values and incitement to immorality and debauchery. Then, the Appeal Circuit of the Economic Court issued a final verdict acquitting Hossam, and ordered Al-Adham to pay a fine. Then, the defendants were referred once again to the criminal court on similar charges, in addition to the human trafficking charge.
Who are the defendants the prosecution referred to trial?
During the early stages of interrogation with Haneen Hossam, Brigadier General Nour El-Din submitted supplementary investigation reports regarding cases that involved other defendants. Therefore, the prosecution issued arrest warrants against them.
Mawaddah al-Adham became accused after one of the defendants reported her. Accordingly, her name was added to the investigation report issued on 27 April 2020, without conducting any investigation to prove her role in the case or the crimes she committed.
Al-Adham’s name was not mentioned in the first investigation report, but it was just mentioned in the second. So, the Public Prosecution found that a sufficient motive to issue an arrest warrant against her on 14 May 2020. After interrogating her on the same day, the Public Prosecution charged her with the same accusations that had been leveled against Hossam, and then a decision was issued to remand her in custody in connection with the same case.
The incident which the Public Prosecution considered a key reason for questioning all the defendants was the use of Likee application, which is owned by the Chinese company BIGO Technology Ltd. Thus, the number of defendants reached five, namely Haneen Hossam, Mawaddah al-Adham, Mohamed Alaa, Mohamed Zaki, and Ahmed Salah. The Public Prosecution referred the five to trial twice, based on the same investigations and the same charges. The first trial was before the Economic Court, on charges of violating Law No. 175 of 2018 on Combating Information Technology Crimes. It ended with Hossam’s acquittal and ordering Al-Adham to pay a fine. The second trial was before the criminal court, which issued prison sentences against the defendants on charges of human trafficking and exploitation of children.
What are the charges the defendants faced in their trial before the criminal court?
- Haneen Hossam
- Human trafficking through dealing with natural persons, namely two girls and other young women, by using them on the pretext of providing them with job opportunities under the guise of working as broadcasters on Likee. This implicitly incited immorality, temptation, and prostitution, through video conversations and establishing friendships during the period of isolation that swept the world under the Covid-19 pandemic, with the intention of obtaining financial benefits.
- Exploiting two girls commercially by encouraging and helping them to join an online application through which they gain a financial benefit in return for getting children to join the application and creating videos for them on it.
- Mawaddah al-Adham
- Human trafficking by using two children under the age of 18 to film videos with her and post them on her social media accounts, taking advantage of their weakness and lack of awareness, to make profits from them.
- Exploiting two children commercially by encouraging and helping them to film videos with her and post them on her social media accounts to make financial profits from the high number of followers.
- Posting videos of two children on social media, and luring them to show behaviors violating the values of society, which would encourage them to deviate, as indicated in the investigation report.
- Using the internet to incite children to deviate and carry out illegal or immoral acts.
- Mohamed Zaki
- Mohamed Alaa
- Ahmed Salah
The defendants’ legal status was linked to that of Hossam, as the prosecution accused them of helping the first defendant commit the crimes in question by granting her a Likee membership and enabling her to create her own group on the platform to invite girls to subscribe in it.
What is the relationship of Likee and its owner company with the case?
Likee is owned by the Chinese company BIGO Technology Ltd, which has been officially operating in Egypt since 2017 and has had an official commercial registry since 2019. The company has been operating normally since the beginning of its work in Egypt. The investigation authorities have not issued any official order regarding the company’s work in the country, which confirms that it did not commit any violations or crimes from the government’s point of view. Although Hossam’s contract with the company aimed to promote the application, which was the main reason for leveling accusations and issuing prison sentences against her, the Egyptian authorities did not consider the Chinese company a party to the case.
Initially, police investigations concluded that there was a human trafficking gang operating on Likee, and its key members were Hossam and some senior staff of the Chinese company. Accordingly, the prosecution interrogated three of the company’s managers in Egypt. Faced with the videos in question, they stressed that the videos did not violate the application’s rules. They said if there were specific standards for public morals in Egypt, they would include them in the application’s rules for users in Egypt. The managers also noted that the application uses artificial intelligence features to review and delete any explicit sexual content.
The foreign defendants were released unconditionally, their names were dropped from the referral order, and they were not considered a party to the case. On 31 August 2020, the Chinese ambassador in Cairo met Public Prosecutor Hamada Elsawy, where he emphasized the company’s abidance by the rules of using online platforms in Egypt. Meanwhile, Sawy said the prosecution did not take any legal action against the company. Since then, there has not been any reference to the Chinese company as being involved in the case.
Only the Egyptian employees remained accused in the case. They were dealt with in their personal capacity, not as representatives of the Chinese company, although the company’s managers explained during the interrogation how the application works. They confirmed that sums of money were sent to Hossam in exchange for the content she provided for Likee, just like any user who has a large number of followers anywhere in the world.
Both sides of the meeting ignored police investigation into the Chinese application, as they considered it – tacitly – worthless when the charges against the company were dropped. It is assumed that there was a conditional link between Likee and Hossam in the case due to the existence of a contract between them. This means that what resulted from that contract, which – in this case – is the announcement that Hossam made on Likee to recruit female broadcasters, could not be a reason to indict her alone, but acquit the company that acknowledged the validity of the announcement and voiced satisfaction with its content.
The meeting between the Chinese ambassador and the Egyptian Public Prosecutor reflected double standards in dealing with the defendants. This indicates that the continuation of the case is nothing but a means of societal control, especially over women, according to beliefs and values that could be interpreted differently. The goal behind the case should rather respect and implement the law.
What are the laws that the prosecution relied on to demand the punishment of the defendants?
The prosecution demanded that the defendants be punished according to:
- Articles 40/Second and Third, 41/1, 291/1, 2, 3 of the Penal Code
- Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6/1, and 13 of Law 64 of 2010 on combating human trafficking
- Articles 2/1, 89, 96/1, 6, 10, 116 bis, and 116 bis (a)/2, 1 paragraph (b) of the Child Law No. 12 of 1996, as amended by Law No. 126 of 2008
Does the human trafficking law apply to the charges brought by the prosecution?
The crime of human trafficking cannot be realized without the presence of victims. According to the investigations, neither Hossam nor Al-Adham exploited the girls in any of the ways mentioned in Article 2 of Law 64 of 2010 to traffic them. Rather, the girls confirmed that they filmed videos with Hossam and Al-Adham with their consent.
A verdict was issued in the case without the presence of a criminal group that carried out human trafficking, as defined by law. This confirms the absence of the crime, as the Public Prosecution excluded some of the key defendants after questioning them as founders of that group. None of the foreign managers of BIGO Technology Ltd was tried. Moreover, no official charges were leveled against an Egyptian manager who admitted that he had contacted Hossam. This implicitly shows that there is no reason to file a criminal case due to the absence of a criminal group that conducts human trafficking.
Is there sufficient evidence proving that the crime of human trafficking has been committed?
AFTE sees that the evidence on which the case was based is invalid, both in terms of the technical evidence and the investigations conducted by the police.
Technical evidence
Brigadier General Nour El-Din, the key witness in the case, exceeded the limits of his role and violated the Public Prosecution’s order, by searching the seized belongings and devices. He retired before he completed his investigations.
According to the case papers, Brigadier General Nour El-Din examined the documents and interrogated the two defendants without any justification and without the prosecution’s permission. Thus, he clearly infringed on the work of the Public Prosecution as well as the work of impartial experts, who are supposed to treat what has been seized as technical evidence, whether it is devices, videos, or conversations. By examining the evidence, Nour El-Din combined the roles of an investigator and a witness against the two defendants. Given his partiality, the integrity of the evidence that he seized and examined cannot be taken into account.
Investigations are not serious
Mawaddah al-Adham’s name was not mentioned in the first investigation report, which was submitted on 23 April 2020. Her name, however, was added to the case after a defendant was arrested on 26 April 2020. The defendant said Al-Adham was a member of the work team, giving no concrete proof of his claim. The investigation report did not even mention the names of those who Al-Adham committed the crime in question against. The defendant’s statements were approved without evidence and without further investigations.
Nour El-Din’s statements during the investigation conducted by the prosecution contradicted what he mentioned in his own investigation. In his statements before the prosecution on 26 April 2020, he did not mention the names of those who Al-Adham committed the crime in question against. He just noted that Al-Adham had broadcast videos on social media that incited immorality and debauchery, a charge that Al-Adham faced when she was previously tried before the Economic Court. The charge, nevertheless, has nothing to do with human trafficking.
The key witness said that Hossam took advantage of the two victims’ “need for money”, by asking them to film videos with her in exchange for money. The two girls, however, admitted that they sought to do so and were not forced or deceived to do anything. There were repeated contradictions between Nour El-Din’s statements and those of the father of one of the victims in the case. The latter stressed that it was the child’s family who sought to get their son involved in a video clip with the defendant.
