Kill Hisham Geneina or get rid of him, you’ll never be free to practise corruption the way you like”. The announcer was attacking the man nervously asserting that the head of the Central Auditing Organisation should be dismissed.
Indeed, the decision to fire Geneina was issued before midnight that night, and the announcer smiled, feeling proud of himself, while saying to the people that the president responded to him positively.
For a long time, the man was subjected to a continuous attack from this announcer and others, and his hands and feet were tied because he does not own a satellite channel to deny the accusations, which did not spare his family and his personal conduct.
While being a venerable judge, he was unable to defend himself after the prosecutor-general issued a publishing ban on his case -- qlthough everybody is speaking about this case night and day, without any inhibiting conscience or a deterring law.
I found myself rereading the first Book of Kings and the story of King Solomon with the two women each claiming the motherhood of a baby: “Someone bring me a sword,” he said. A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered “Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.” The baby’s mother screamed asking him to give the baby to the other woman. The king decided that she was the real mother.
The book says in the end: “Everyone in Israel was amazed when they heard how Solomon had made his decision. They realised that God had given him wisdom to judge fairly.” Thus, the rule is established through justice and the earth is stabilised by fair judgement.
This was the judgement of reason and wisdom in the times of Solomon, which is quite different from another time that the Book of Judges spoke of.
The judges in this book were not the judges according to the modern definition. They were leaders or chiefs who appeared among the Israelites during the period following the death of Joshua and the beginning of the Age of Kings. They were as though commissioned by God himself to rule.
According to the Old Testament narratives, this period of the Israelites’ history was bleak, for after the age of the brilliant Joshua, people were engaged in comfort and amusement and began to worship idols.
Thus, the judges had to make them return to faithfulness again. They were God’s hands in reimposing his law and justice after miscreance and corruption had become prevalent. In short, the Book of Judges covers the period of apostasy, regression and moral decay; the defeat of justice in the confrontation with corruption.
Respecting the prosecutor-general’s decision, I will observe the ban. However, my conscience will not accept to remain silent, static while a human being is slaughtered for simply shedding some light over the bats’ dark dens where corruption thrives.
It was said that he was talking politics, and with all due respect to judges and judicary, may anyone point to me a judge who did not appear in the media or in general during the last five years to give an opinion?
Examples are numerous and I don’t want to fall in the same error of these pretenders who occupy television screens every evening in order to assassinate certain persons. However, I think that people remember that, for instance, some judges stated opinions against the “Muslim Brotherhood”. Then they did not feel embarrassed to sit on the high judicial platform to try members of that organisation and issue verdicts against them, to the extent that one of them said that he would not be satisfied if tens of thousands of them were killed.
It was said that Geneina was not correct in determining the accurate number of the sums of money wasted by corruption, while acknowledging the existence of corruption. Was that the real error or was the error in pointing out the area of corruption?
Even if we agreed that the number was exaggerated, shouldn’t this alert everyone concerned to combat corruption like we used to stimulate our soldiers before crossing the Barlev Line through asserting the dangerousness and savagery of the enemy?
It was said that he did not take the sound legal path in presenting the reports related to corruption -- although the old constitution and law under which he was working stipulated that he must brief the public about the corruption situation. Since the new constitution has not been activated yet then, and the Corruption Combating Agency, mentioned in the constitution, has not been established yet, should the man be blamed for briefing public opinion about a topic with this amount of significance? Especially as the people, as the constitution stipulates, are the source of all powers.
It was said that what he has negatively affected the Egyptian economy because it scared investors from having investments in Egypt -- as if those investors are naïve and gullible persons who do not know the situation of the countries they are investing in.
I am certain that if the organisation’s report is handled in a positive way and the will to combat corruption is obvious, this will encourage serious investors to come to Egypt. This certainty comes from experiences and observations of many countries in the world.
What raises surprise and doubt is that methodical media campaign waged for a long time against the Central Auditing Agency, as if it were self-defence from the sector that has the wealth which allows it to control the media space.
Thus, it is a campaign waged from the trenches of corruption which has become cancerous in the state key apparatus and more dangerous than terrorism on the security and stability of the country.
Since this is the case, there will be nobody standing for the rights of the poor for fearing for himself. Then finally, is it appropriate to treat a venerable judge in this humiliating way in the media, even if we agree that he has made mistakes?
I think Solomon’s wisdom is lost and we are living in the time of the Book of Judges.