By: Rahma Samy
Contents
- Methodology
- Introduction
- Section I: The Legal and Regulatory Framework for Website Licensing
- Section II: Licensing Policies: Insights from Independent News Sites
- Section III: The Impact of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation’s Policies on Media Pluralism
- Conclusion
Methodology
This paper adopts a qualitative approach to analyze the legal framework governing digital media in Egypt. It reviews Law No. 180 of 2018 on Regulating Press, Media, and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR), alongside its executive regulations and licensing rules. Additionally, the paper analyzes statements and decisions issued by the SCMR regarding site licensing and status regularization in recent years. It evaluates these policies against constitutional guarantees and international media standards, particularly Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The research builds on legal and analytical reports from Egyptian and international human rights organizations examining Egypt’s digital media environment. It also incorporates direct interviews and consultations conducted in two phases with managers of independent news websites. In June 2023, initial outreach included representatives from Mada Masr, Al-Manassa, Al-Sulta Al-Rabi’a, Fikr Tani, and Masr 360. A follow-up round was conducted in June 2026 with managers from Al-Manassa, Al-Sulta Al-Rabi’a, and Masr 360. This two-stage approach tracks the evolution and practical implementation of licensing policies over a three-year period.
Introduction
Over the past decade, Egypt’s digital media landscape has undergone significant legal and regulatory shifts. These changes coincided with the growing reliance on websites and digital platforms as primary spaces for news production and distribution.In response, state authorities established a legal framework to regulate digital media. This culminated in Law No. 180 of 2018 on Regulating Press, Media, and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR), along with its executive regulations. This framework subjected the establishment and operation of websites to prior licensing by the SCMR.
Under this law, securing a license became a mandatory requirement to operate legally. Consequently, the SCMR gained a central role in regulating digital media and determining which outlets receive legal recognition. This licensing regime applied not only to new outlets but also to existing platforms through a “status regularization” process. It even extended to websites and applications outside traditional journalism, raising questions about the boundaries of the SCMR’s regulatory authority.
While framed as a tool to organize media work and enforce professional standards, practical implementation reveals a stark contrast. On one side are media outlets that secured licenses or regularized their status. On the other are independent news sites whose applications remained pending for years, faced rejection, or received no response. Meanwhile, the SCMR announced the approval and status regularization of numerous commercial, service, and news platforms in recent years.
Against this backdrop, this paper analyzes how the licensing system creates varying degrees of legal legitimacy. It examines why certain organizations gain stable legal status while others remain in legal limbo despite attempting to comply. Key case studies include Mada Masr, Al-Manassa, Fikr Tani, Masr 360, and Al-Sulta Al-Rabi’a, alongside the legal and professional impact on these outlets and their journalists.
Finally, the paper evaluates how these policies affect the stability of the journalistic environment and the ability of independent outlets to operate within a clear, secure legal framework. It further addresses the broader implications for media pluralism and the right of access to information in the digital sphere, treating media pluralism as a core requirement for freedom of expression and a diverse media ecosystem.
Section I: The Legal and Regulatory Framework for Website Licensing
In recent years, Egypt’s digital media sector underwent a major legal and regulatory shift. This followed the enactment of Law No. 180 of 2018 on Regulating Press, Media, and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR), along with its executive regulations. Together, they established the first comprehensive legal framework governing the creation and management of news and media websites. [1]
This transformation coincided with a growing reliance on digital platforms and websites as primary outlets for publishing and sharing news. This shift directly altered traditional media consumption patterns. According to the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), total domestic and international newspaper circulation reached approximately 547 million copies in 2018. Since then, the print journalism sector has faced continuous structural changes due to the ongoing migration toward digital platforms. [2]
Article 70 of the Egyptian Constitution[3] stipulates that “freedom of the press, printing, and paper, visual, audio, and digital publishing is guaranteed.” The same article provides that “newspapers shall be issued merely upon notification, as regulated by law.” From a legal standpoint, a notification-based system means that exercising a right does not depend on prior approval from an administrative body. Instead, the right holder begins their activity simply by notifying the competent authority and fulfilling the regulatory procedures defined by law. Conversely, a licensing-based system requires prior approval from an administrative body before starting any activity. This grants the authority full discretion to approve, reject, or delay granting a permit.
Although the Constitution adopts the notification principle as the foundation for publishing newspapers, the Press and Media Regulation Law placed websites under a different framework based on prior licensing. Article 6 of the law stipulates that “no website may be established or managed in the Arab Republic of Egypt, nor may offices or branches of foreign websites operate within the country, without obtaining a license from the Supreme Council for Media Regulation.”[4] Consequently, establishing websites and practicing digital journalism became dependent on obtaining administrative approval rather than simple notification.
The significance of this shift extends beyond replacing notification with licensing. It also lies in broadening the scope of entities under the authority of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR). The phrasing of Article 6 was broad, using the general term “websites” without restricting it to news or journalism platforms. In practice, this was reflected in the SCMR’s decisions on licensing and status regularization. These decisions covered not only news and media outlets, but also a wide array of commercial, service, and digital applications, including e-commerce, advertising, and real estate platforms.
This expansion raises questions regarding the boundaries of the SCMR’s regulatory role and the nature of activities subject to its jurisdiction. Under the Constitution and the law, the Council was established as the governing body for the press and media sector. However, the practical implementation of the licensing system extended its regulatory authority to a broader range of digital activities—many of which do not practice journalism or media work.[5] While this paper does not examine the regulation of non-journalistic digital activities, it focuses specifically on the impact of this regime on independent news and journalism websites.
The licensing requirement was not limited to new websites seeking to launch after the law was passed. It also applied to platforms already in operation when the Press and Media Regulation Law and its executive regulations were enacted. The Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR) called on existing websites to “regularize their status” and submit license applications to continue operating legally. Furthermore, the law granted the SCMR broad powers to manage and regulate the digital media sector. These powers include setting regulatory standards for media outlets, monitoring compliance, and imposing sanctions for violations.
The Licensing Regulations issued by the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR) further detailed the procedures and conditions for obtaining licenses. Article 11 outlines the application submission process and the required documents and data. Article 12 regulates the review and resolution process, which is handled by a specialized Licensing Committee that prepares a report for the SCMR to make a final decision. The regulations also set specific timeframes for examining and responding to applications. In theory, this establishes a clear timeline for resolving licensing requests rather than leaving them pending indefinitely.[6]
The executive regulations and forms issued by the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR) set out several legal, administrative, and financial requirements for obtaining a website license. According to guidelines issued by the Council, the applicant must be an Egyptian natural or legal person. The website must also have a defined legal entity and a minimum capital of EGP 100,000. Additionally, applicants must submit several documents, including a commercial register and articles of incorporation for companies. They are also required to provide details regarding the website’s administrative and editorial structure, proposed editorial policy, funding sources, and business plan. [7]
Licensing requirements also include a fee of EGP 50,000 payable upon submitting the application, which is the same amount required for license renewal. Licenses are granted for a term of five years. Licensees must apply for renewal at least six months prior to the expiration date in accordance with applicable rules. Since its initial implementation, the licensing regulations have undergone several subsequent amendments.[8]
In 2024, the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR) approved amendments to select articles of the regulations. These changes allowed for a 90% refund of licensing fees if an application is rejected or withdrawn prior to a final decision, minus a 10% deduction for administrative costs. The amendments also addressed document completion requirements and renewal procedures. [9] While these updates reflect ongoing procedural refinements to the licensing system, they leave its foundational core intact—most notably, the requirement for prior SCMR approval to operate in the digital media space.
The issue of licensing gains added significance in light of Article 105 of the Press and Media Regulation Law. This article explicitly links digital media operations to obtaining prior authorization by imposing penalties on establishing or managing unlicensed websites. In addition to financial fines, the article permits the imposition of measures that include closure or confiscation. [10]
Thus, it can be said that the Press and Media Regulation Law shifted the operation of websites from a notification-based framework to a system tied to prior approval and official recognition granted by an administrative body. This shift represents the primary entry point for understanding the practical dilemmas generated by the implementation of the licensing regime in subsequent years.
Section Two: Licensing Policies in Light of the Experiences of Independent News Websites
Since the implementation of Press and Media Regulation Law No. 180 of 2018 and its executive regulations, the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR) has undertaken a wide-scale operation to “regularize the status” of existing digital platforms and websites, alongside receiving license applications from new entities seeking to enter the digital media sector. Over time, monitoring the SCMR’s decisions and statements reveals that the licensing system is not administered merely as a neutral regulatory procedure. Rather, its practical application reflects a stark disparity between entities that obtain licenses or regularize their legal status and independent journalism websites whose applications remain pending or are rejected after long periods of waiting.
In May 2020, the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR) announced the opening of license applications, calling on press and media outlets as well as websites to submit requests to “regularize their status” under the provisions of the new law.[11] At the time, the SCMR’s Secretary-General emphasized that Law No. 180 of 2018 granted the Council—”for the first time in Egypt”—the authority to issue licenses to websites.
Available official data shows that the SCMR has licensed or regularized hundreds of entities since the system began. The Council announced issuing 78 licenses on one occasion[12], and 100 on another. [13] Further rounds of approvals followed in subsequent years. However, published data lacks a comprehensive, updated database. It does not clarify whether these figures represent new licenses or existing entities.The Council also omits key statistics. It does not disclose total applications, rejections, pending cases, average wait times, or reasons for delay.
In July 2025, the SCMR announced the approval of licenses and status regularizations for 21 websites and digital applications. These included news outlets such as “Telegraph Egypt,” “Nabd Al-Asema,” and “Al-Hikaya Online,” along with websites belonging to national press institutions like the Middle East News Agency (MENA), Dar Al-Hilal, and Al-Gomhuria.[14] In August 2025, the Council announced the approval of licenses and status regularizations for five new websites and applications. These included outlets such as “Mostaqbal Masr News,” “Al-Hiwar,” “Khabar Live,” “Estethmarek News,” and “Arab Forex.” [15] Later, in April 2026, the Council announced the regularization of ten additional websites and digital applications. [16]
In contrast to the announced lists of licensed or regularized websites, the experiences of several independent news outlets reveal different paths. These range from delayed responses lasting years to rejected applications and unresolved legal status. In some cases, the licensing process also overlaps with other measures, such as website blocking, investigations, or legal prosecution.
However, the nature of this overlap varies from one case to another. In some instances, blocking measures or other actions were officially linked to licensing issues. In other cases, blocking or prosecution occurred while licensing decisions remained unresolved. Thus, this paper examines these cases as distinct patterns in the relationship between the licensing regime and the measures faced by independent news websites. The experience of the “Mada Masr” website serves as a suitable starting point for understanding these patterns.
“Mada Masr” submitted a license application in October 2018 in response to the SCMR’s call for websites to regularize their status. The site reapplied in August 2020 following the release of the law’s executive regulations. However, it received no response to either application within the legally prescribed timeframe.[17] In October 2022, the site’s owning company filed a lawsuit before the Administrative Judiciary Court. The suit demanded the issuance of the license and compensation for damages resulting from the Council’s failure to notify them of the application status. In May 2023, the Licensing Circuit of the Administrative Judiciary Court upheld the SCMR’s decision to reject the license. The court cited reasons including the failure to submit proof of trademark registration and missing required documents. During the court proceedings, the site’s management affirmed that it had provided additional documentation regarding its trademark and corporate shareholder structure.[18]
In September 2023, the site’s editor-in-chief, Lina Attalah, was charged with “operating a website without a license.” [19] According to the website, this was based on a notification from the SCMR regarding the license rejection.The same charge was brought against her again during investigation by the Cairo Appeal Prosecution in February 2024, following a complaint filed by the SCMR. The charge resurfaced in August 2025 during an investigation by the Supreme State Security Prosecution over a news report published by the website. [20]
The case of “Mada Masr” does not appear to be an exception in how certain independent news websites are handled. While the licensing crisis in that instance was linked to investigation and legal prosecution, the experience of the “Feker Tany” website reveals a different issue related to the reasons for rejection itself and the management of the subsequent appeal process. On September 25, 2024, the SCMR notified “Free Think Media,” the company owning the website, of the decision to reject its license application, based on the findings of the specialized licensing committee and the submission of the request to Council members. The Council justified its decision, issued on September 8, 2024, citing the failure to meet three technical and legal conditions: “lack of clarity regarding the advertising policy in relation to the website’s objectives,” “lack of clarity regarding funding sources and methods,” and “lack of clarity regarding the security plan for equipment and devices used to provide the service via the website.” The Council also notified the site’s operators of their right to a 90% refund of the previously paid licensing fees. [21]
In a subsequent development, the SCMR informed the legal representative of the “Feker Tany” website that the appeal against the license rejection decision remains under review. This came after the legal representative received a letter on December 30, 2024, requesting their presence at the Council’s headquarters within fifteen days. Upon attending, they were informed that the review of the appeal had commenced, and that continued communication between the Council and the website was necessary until all required documents are fulfilled and a final decision is reached. [22]
This case reveals that the licensing crisis is not merely about receiving a direct rejection decision. Rather, it extends to how the rejection is justified and how the post-rejection phase is managed. Instead of using the mechanism provided in the licensing regulations to request missing information, the Council relied on vague phrasing such as the “lack of clarity” regarding advertising policy, funding, or equipment security. Furthermore, the appeal submitted by the website remained under review without a final resolution. The case of “Feker Tany” stands out as an example of an administrative path that led to the rejection of a license application based on reasons related to the “lack of clarity” of certain data—even though the regulations provide a mechanism to notify applicants to complete missing data or documents. Consequently, the website’s legal status remained suspended, despite having submitted an appeal and a legal memorandum addressing the rejection grounds in detail.
While “Mada Masr” and “Feker Tany” show two paths of license rejection or delay, “Al-Manassa” highlights another pattern: a pending application for years alongside other restrictions and targeting.In October 2018, “Al-Manassa” applied for a license after the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR) assumed site licensing, paying the required fees without receiving a reply. In August 2020, following the law’s executive regulations, the site reapplied under the new framework but still received no final response. In June 2026, Nora Younis explained that the site resubmitted its file after the regulations were issued. However, by the interview date, it had received no final decision or requests for additional documents, leaving the organization’s legal status suspended for years. This unresolved licensing status also overlapped with other forms of targeting.[23] On June 24, 2020, security forces from the Copyright Protection Police raided the site’s headquarters and arrested its editor-in-chief, Nora Younis. On June 25, 2020, the Maadi Summary Prosecution released her on 10,000 EGP bail. She faced charges of creating an online account to commit or facilitate a crime, possessing unauthorized software without a National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) permit, and infringing intellectual property rights—charges based on the Anti-Cybercrime Law and the Intellectual Property Law, rather than the Press and Media Regulation Law. [24]
The website also suffered repeated blocking. In July 2022, civil society groups condemned Egyptian authorities for blocking three site links within 72 hours, after a relaunch with new content. According to Editor-in-Chief Nora Younis, blocking targeted the host company’s IP address, then an alternative link just three hours later. [25]
The Syndicate of Journalists’ annual report highlighted the ongoing blocking of news websites, led by Al-Manassa, despite unblocking others. While blocking and investigation measures were not legally grounded in the site’s lack of a license, leaving the application unresolved kept Al-Manassa in a precarious legal status alongside other restrictions.[26]
Licensing issues are not limited to rejection or unresolved applications; they also extend to how licensing status relates to blocking. “Al-Solta Al-Rabea” and “Masr 360” illustrate a different pattern, where blocking was more directly linked to licensing, according to official sources and site operators. Both sites were blocked in June 2023, despite their differing subsequent paths regarding license acquisition.
According to a statement by Raymond Wagdy, Editor-in-Chief of “Al-Solta Al-Rabea” at the time, the Journalists’ Syndicate informed him that the blocking was tied to incomplete licensing procedures under Law No. 180 of 2018. Wagdy clarified that the site was already working to meet licensing requirements, including company incorporation and registration, but fulfilling certain financial and administrative demands delayed the process. [27]
Subsequent developments reveal differing outcomes for submitted applications. According to the editor-in-chief’s statement to the researcher in June 2026, this path concluded with “Al-Solta Al-Rabea” obtaining its license in January 2026, following years of completing legal and administrative procedures. [28]
Regarding “Masr 360”, founder Hussein Bahgat stated in June 2023 that the site had applied for a license over six months before the block, receiving no response from the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR) nor prior warnings [29]. Furthermore, site representatives noted to the researcher in June 2026 that the ongoing lack of a final licensing decision creates uncertainty, impacting long-term planning and workplace stability. [30]
These two cases show that licensing was used as a justification for blocking, both in statements attributed to the Supreme Council for Media Regulation and in accounts from site managers. However, the lack of a published official decision stating the legal basis for blocking—or linking it to violations of the Press and Media Regulation Law—makes it hard to conclusively establish non-licensing as the direct legal reason in all cases, reflecting ongoing ambiguity around blocking mechanisms and their overlap with licensing.
Overall, these cases show that managing the licensing system produced no unified legal or administrative path for independent media outlets. Instead, it involved diverse practices: rejecting applications, suspending them for years, leaving appeals pending, or coinciding with investigations, blocking, and prosecution. Lacking comprehensive, transparent official data on licensing administration, it remains hard to assess compliance with transparency, equality, and legal certainty, directly impacting the stability of the legal environment for independent outlets.
Section 3: The Impact of SCMR Policies on Media Pluralism
The website licensing system raises questions beyond procedural and legal compliance, extending to its impact on the digital media structure itself. Requirements imposed by the system not only regulate site establishment but also shape different media outlets’ survival, growth, and market entry, affecting digital media pluralism and diversity. This issue is particularly critical given the increasing shift toward digital media as the primary space for journalism and news production.
For news organizations, especially independent ones, websites are no longer merely an additional publishing platform, but the primary means to reach audiences and conduct journalism. Consequently, legal and regulatory restrictions on creating or maintaining websites impact not just their administrative status, but their very ability to exist and compete in the media landscape.
The cases examined in this paper align with accounts gathered from managers of independent news websites, showing that the licensing crisis was not viewed as a mere procedural matter of submitting documents or obtaining administrative approval, but as a critical factor impacting institutional stability. These accounts highlighted that unresolved, rejected, or ambiguous applications created prolonged legal uncertainty, affecting institutional planning, daily operations, and prospects for growth or investment.
This impact is particularly evident regarding media pluralism, a fundamental pillar of freedom of expression and media freedom. The Council of Europe defines media pluralism as a structural democracy cornerstone based on dismantling ownership monopolies and ensuring transparency, while opening the public sphere for diverse social and political views to express themselves freely. This perspective extends beyond traditional media to the digital environment by obliging platforms and algorithms to highlight diverse, independent news sources that ensure marginalized voices and minority access. From this viewpoint, media pluralism relates not only to the number of outlets, but also to their diversity, editorial lines, and actors able to reach audiences and produce media content.
In examining media pluralism as a core component of media freedom, Jan Oster argues that democracy is inconceivable without genuine media pluralism that enables the circulation of diverse views and information in the public sphere. [31] This argument stems from the concept of “positive state obligations,” which extend beyond refraining from interfering with existing pluralism to taking necessary legislative and regulatory measures to protect and sustain it. From this perspective, evaluating the licensing system goes beyond the legality of its administrative procedures to include its impact on diverse outlets’ opportunities to enter and remain in the media landscape.
When obtaining a license becomes a prerequisite for practicing legal journalism, the licensing mechanism itself shapes access to the media landscape. Its administration, application standards, and transparency directly influence media pluralism. In this context, ARTICLE 19 [32]stresses that regulatory frameworks governing media must adhere to principles of necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination to prevent them from becoming tools that exclude media actors or restrict their legitimate operations. These principles align with Council of Europe recommendations on media pluralism and ownership transparency, emphasizing clear, transparent regulatory frameworks to ensure equal opportunities for all media actors.
Accounts also indicate that remaining in unresolved legal status was not viewed as an abstract legal issue, but as a factor impacting institutional management, stability, long-term planning, and operation within a predictable legal environment. These findings align with international principles linking media regulation to the necessity of providing a stable, transparent legal environment that ensures equal opportunities for all media actors.
The impact of this condition extends beyond media outlets and journalists to the public itself. Media pluralism aims not to protect institutions for their own sake, but primarily to guarantee the public’s right to access diverse information and opinions from multiple sources. [33] Whenever the number of media actors able to operate stably shrinks—or entry and retention barriers grow—the diversity available in the public sphere diminishes, directly undermining public access to varied news and information sources.
From this perspective, the licensing issue acquires a human rights dimension extending beyond media regulation to impact freedom of expression and information exchange. This dilemma stems from the tension between the current licensing system and Article 70 of the Egyptian Constitution, [34]which guarantees “freedom of the press, printing, and paper, visual, audio, and electronic publishing,” stating that “newspapers may be issued merely by notification as regulated by law.” This text reflects a constitutional commitment framing media issuance as an inherent right independent of prior administrative approval.
The system also raises questions regarding its compatibility with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), [35]which guarantees freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas. Although the article permits certain restrictions, it stipulates that they must be provided by law, serve a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. International standards reinforce this principle; the UN Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 34 interpreting Article 19, affirmed that any restrictions on freedom of expression must cumulatively satisfy the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality, remaining clear and precise without granting public authorities broad discretion that allows arbitrary interference. [36]
While the state’s right to regulate the media landscape and establish administrative rules ensuring transparency, accountability, and legal compliance is undisputed, human rights concerns center on whether prior licensing is a necessary and proportionate means to achieve these goals. Alternatively, such aims could be met through less restrictive regulatory mechanisms—primarily notification system—which allow the state to retain its regulatory authority.
This aligns with statements by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, who emphasized that prior media licensing systems must not become a mechanism for granting or withholding the right to expression or journalism. Licensing requirements for media operations should remain limited and tied to narrow technical considerations, rather than being used to control media pluralism or exclude specific media actors from the public sphere. [37]
Furthermore, the 2007 Joint Declaration on the Independence and Diversity of Media Organizations affirms that any media regulatory system must rest on institutional independence, transparency, and non-discrimination. Its decisions should follow objective, publicized criteria without permitting selective application against specific media actors. These principles carry particular weight regarding Egypt’s licensing system, where no periodically published data exists on total applications submitted, rejected, or pending, nor are rejection grounds or evaluation criteria made public to allow popular oversight. [38]
Conversely, leaving applications unresolved for extended periods reveals the broad discretionary power granted to the administrative authority over licensing. This undermines the ability to verify whether the system adheres to transparency and non-discrimination standards, while directly impacting the opportunities of diverse outlets to enter and remain in the media landscape.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In light of the above, the fundamental issue with the current licensing system lies in the nature of its underlying mechanism rather than the principle of regulation itself. The core problem is not the existence of a legal framework regulating digital news outlets, but the submission of digital news websites to a prior licensing system. This system grants an administrative authority broad power to determine who holds the right to operate stably within the media sphere, amid a lack of sufficient transparency and guarantees regarding equality and non-discrimination. Consequently, the impacts extend beyond procedural matters to affect the very structure of the media landscape, the level of pluralism within it, the legal security of news organizations and their workers, and the public’s right to access information.
Therefore, transitioning to a notification-based system instead of prior licensing—while maintaining subsequent regulatory requirements and legal accountability mechanisms—represents one of the alternatives most consistent with relevant constitutional guarantees and international standards. Furthermore, this requires enhancing transparency in managing the licensing process, publishing data regarding submitted, rejected, and pending applications, and establishing clear, public criteria for deciding on applications, thereby preventing administrative regulation from turning into a tool for prohibition or unjustified restriction of press and media freedom.
The Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE) recommends the following:
- Amend Law No. 180 of 2018 regulating the press and media to ensure that notification suffices for establishing digital news websites, aligning with Article 70 of the Egyptian Constitution, rather than requiring prior licensing from the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR).
- Repeal legal provisions penalizing the creation or management of unlicensed websites—chiefly Article 105 of the Press and Media Regulation Law—ensuring that closure, confiscation, or financial penalties are not used as sanctions for lacking a license.
- Obligate the Supreme Council for Media Regulation to adhere to statutory deadlines for deciding on licensing or status-adjustment applications, with non-response within the legal timeframe considered an implicit approval.
- Publish periodic, updated data regarding licensing administration, including the number of submitted, approved, rejected, and pending applications, grounds for rejection, and average processing times, thereby enhancing transparency and public accountability.
- Subject all regulatory measures concerning digital news websites to the principles of necessity, proportionality, transparency, and non-discrimination, in accordance with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and relevant international standards on freedom of expression and media freedom.
[1] Law No. 180 of 2018 on Regulating Press, Media, and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation, https://manshurat.org/node/31481 [2] Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), Annual Bulletin of Cultural Statistics 2017 (Cairo: CAPMAS, 2020), press release, p. 1. Total newspaper distribution inside and outside Egypt reached approximately 547 million copies in 2018. .file:///Users/macbook/Downloads/Press%20Statment.pdf [3] Arab Republic of Egypt, Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt (2014), Article 70. [4] Arab Republic of Egypt, Law No. 180 of 2018 on Regulating Press, Media, and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation, Article 6. https://manshurat.org/node/31481. [5] Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE), "The Supreme Council for Media Regulation: A Reading of Powers and Practices," April 22, 2019, accessed June 18, 2026, https://afteegypt.org/legislations/legislative-analysis/2019/04/22/17424-aftegypt.html. [6] Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR), "SCMR Issues Licensing Regulations," May 10, 2020, Supreme Council for Media Regulation. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid. [9] Aya Ibrahim, "SCMR Issues Decision Amending Select Articles of Licensing Regulations," Al-Masry Al-Youm, September 24, 2024, accessed June 18, 2026, https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/3267117. [10] Arab Republic of Egypt, Law No. 180 of 2018 Regulating the Press, Media, and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation, Official Gazette, Issue No. 34 bis (a), August 27, 2018, Article 105. [11] Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR), "Licensing Regulations Issued by SCMR Decision No. 26 of 2020," published in Manshurat Legal, May 10, 2020, https://manshurat.org/node/74277. [12] "Youm7 Congratulates Colleagues Receiving Website Licenses from SCMR," Youm7, January 3, 2024, https://www.youm7.com/story/2024/1/3/ [13] "SCMR Celebrates Delivery of 100 New Licenses and Status Adjustment Certificates," Youm7, June 16, 2022, https://www.youm7.com/story/2022/6/16/5805013 [14] "SCMR Approves 21 New Licenses for Websites and Applications," Masrawy, July 24, 2025, https://www.masrawy.com/news/news_egypt/details/2025/7/24/2824752. [15] "SCMR Grants 6 New Licenses for Digital Platforms with a New Batch Coming Soon," Youm7, August 6, 2025, https://www.youm7.com/story/2025/8/6/ [16] "Officially.. SCMR Announces Status Regularization of 10 New Digital Entities," Masrawy, April 20, 2026, https://www.masrawy.com/news/news_egypt/details/2026/4/20/2975382. [17] Afaf Abdel Moneim and Nora Younis, "SCMR Demands Digital Platforms Regularize Their Status... And Al-Manassa Awaits a Response Since 2018," Al-Manassa, June 11, 2024, https://manassa.news/news/18021. [18] Mohamed Napoleon, "Administrative Judiciary Rejects Licensing of Mada Masr Website for 'Failure to Register Trademark'," Al-Manassa, May 24, 2023, accessed June 18, 2026, https://manassa.news/node/11338. [19] Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE), "Release of Lina Attalah on EGP 5,000 Bail Pending Charges of Operating Mada Masr Website Without a License," February 21, 2024, accessed June 18, 2026, https://afteegypt.org/legal-profiles-2/legal-news/2024/02/21/36689-afteegypt.html. [20] Mohamed El-Khouly, "Supreme State Security Releases Editor-in-Chief of Mada Masr on EGP 30,000 Bail," Al-Manassa, August 4, 2025, accessed June 18, 2026, https://manassa.news/news/26120. [21] Direct communication with the researcher, June 2024. Accessed June 18, 2026, https://manassa.news/news/19643. [22] Editorial Team, "SCMR to 'Feker Tany': Appeal Against License Rejection is Under Review," Feker Tany, January 4, 2025, accessed June 18, 2026, https://www.fakartany.net/2025/01/04/fakartanyeg/. [23] Direct communication with the researcher via WhatsApp, June 14, 2026. [24] Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE), "Security Forces Raid Al-Manassa Headquarters and Arrest Editor-in-Chief," June 24, 2020, accessed June 18, 2026, https://afteegypt.org/legal-profiles-2/legal-news/2020/06/24/19542-afteegypt.html. [25] Direct communication with the researcher, June 2024, https://afteegypt.org/advocacy/2022/08/02/31748-afteegypt.html. [26] Mohamed El-Khouly, "‘Syndicate's Sixth Conference’.. Calls for Legislative Amendments Allowing Freedom of Press Publication and Preventing Blocking," Al-Manassa, December 15, 2024, accessed June 18, 2026, https://manassa.news/news/21177. [27] Direct communication with the researcher, June 2023. [28] Direct communication with the researcher via WhatsApp, June 14, 2026. [29] Ibid. [30] Direct communication with the researcher via WhatsApp, June 14, 2026. [31] Jan Oster, “Media Pluralism,” in Media Freedom as a Fundamental Right (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 200–223. [32] ARTICLE 19, International Standards: Regulation of Media Workers, April 4, 2012, https://www.article19.org/resources/international-standards-regulation-media-workers/. [33] European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of expression (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2022), 18-22, accessed June 19, 2026, coe.int. [34] Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt of 2014, amended on April 18, 2019, Article 70, Official Gazette, Issue No. 16 bis (b), April 20, 2019. [35] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Resolution 2200A (XXI), Article 19, December 16, 1966, ohchr.org. [36] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34: Article 19 (Freedoms of Opinion and Expression), Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 102nd Session, Geneva, September 2011, paras. 22–25, ohchr.org. [37] UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Joint Declaration on Media Freedom and Democracy (Geneva: UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023), paras. 2–3, ohchr.org. [38] Freedom of expression and broadcasting regulation”, unesco, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000191623
