After only two sessions, the court postponed the lawsuit, filed by 12 lawyers from different political and intellectual backgrounds, to release 15 imprisoned Brotherhood members until October 9.
The second session saw a debate between the lawyers representing the government and the Brotherhood’s defense. The latter included lawyers belonging to the leftish Nasserist and the liberal Wafd Party, in addition to Islamist-oriented and independent lawyers.
They argued that item 86 of the Penal Code, under which the convicted Brotherhood members were tried, is similar to item 48 of the same Code, which the Constitutional Court annulled, and therefore it should be declared unconstitutional. They further argued that by canceling item 48, the Constitutional Court meant to annul all similar items. The item that was annulled gave the State jurisdiction to arrest, prosecute and even sentence anyone who planned to carry out a crime even if they had not actually done so.
On the other hand, the lawyers representing the government said that the Constitutional Court had only annulled item 48 and had given no ruling concerning item 86. Therefore, the argument of the Brotherhood’s defense had no true legal basis.