The Egyptian president takes a decisive position and rejects an official call from the British Prime Minister .. What is happening?

Follow-up- Al-Zawiya Net- The journalist and member of the House of Representatives, Mustafa Bakri, sparked widespread controversy after revealing the incident of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s refusal to respond to a phone call from the new British Prime Minister, Kiir Starmer.

Bakri’s statements came to highlight the Egyptian position rejecting what he described as blatant interference in the internal affairs, especially with regard to the issue of the imprisoned activist Alaa Abdel -Fattah, which was adopted by British and British organizations in a controversial way.

Why did President Sisi refuse to respond to the call of the British Prime Minister?

According to what Mustafa Bakri announced in a tweet through his official account, President Sisi refused to respond to a phone call from British Prime Minister Kiir Starmer because he was aware of the content of the call, and related to demanding the release of activist Alaa Abdel -Fattah. Bakri stressed that this step is a strong political message that confirms that Egypt does not allow any external party, whatever its position, to interfere in its judiciary or impose a guardianship on its sovereign decisions.

What is the reason for Britain’s adherence to the case of Alaa Abdel -Fattah?

Bakri pointed out that the official British move, from the highest political level represented by the Prime Minister itself, to release Alaa Abdel -Fattah, holds deep indications. He pointed out that this insistence reflects an extraordinary interest on the part of Britain and its intelligence services in the aforementioned activist, which raises questions about the reasons for this intense adoption, which goes beyond the limits of human rights action to sensitive political dimensions.

Who is Alaa Abdel -Fattah? And why do some describe it as a terrorist?

Bakri reviewed some of Alaa Abdel -Fattah’s previous positions, pointing to his invitations described as inclusive against state institutions, led by the armed forces and the police, and his use of what he called “humiliating words” against the Egyptian state. He stressed that such actions cannot be classified under the item of freedom of opinion and expression, but rather in the circle of incitement to violence and destabilizing, which is criminalized by Egyptian law.

How did Mustafa Bakri respond to the British demands?

Bakri sent a clear message to the British government, wondering about the position that London would have taken if an activist in Britain was incited to kill the police or insult state institutions. He said: “Was you allowing this under the umbrella of freedom of expression? Or were you going to take decisive measures?”, Stressing that Egypt could not be subject to any external extortion, whatever the pressures.

Is President Sisi under international pressure due to human rights issues?

According to Bakri’s statements, the official Egyptian position confirms that the state does not accept threat or promises, and is not subject to any external political pressure. He stressed that President Sisi adheres to the law and respect the sovereignty of the state, explaining that any decision made will stem from an independent internal will, not in response to any external or political extortion.

What is the position of the Egyptian state on legal issues?

Bakri explained that Egypt does not oppose the principle of human rights, but at the same time it rejects the political employment attempts to this file. He stressed that there is a big difference between defending legitimate rights, and using freedom slogans to justify incitement or undermining state institutions, noting that the government deals with these issues within the framework of the constitution and the law.

Egyptian sovereignty is a red line

Bakri concluded his statements by emphasizing that Egypt supports President Sisi in his decisions that are based on respecting national sovereignty and the independence of the political decision, explaining that the Egyptian people are standing one row against any external interference that seeks to direct matters in the interest of the state.