Political Experts: MB Sentences a Settling of Scores

Unjust sentences served to 5 leading international Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the “International MB networking case” has been deciphered by political analysts as nothing short of settling scores.
 
According to Abdul Haleem Qandil, coordinator of the Kefaya Movement, the unfair judgments were politically motivated especially since 28 other MB members were acquitted in the same case early last year by a civilian court. He stressed that the regime is intolerant toward any opposition and wants to monopolize the political arena. Qandil highlighted the fact that the sentences ranging from 5-8 years served were meant to intimidate the MB in Egypt in an attempt to deter MB members and their call for political reform and constitutional amendments.
 
Rafiq Habib, a Coptic political thinker, added that the unfair provisions and the regime’s insistence on applying the Emergency Law against political opposition, mainly the MB, is a lame attempt by the authorities to pressure the group into backing down from their call, hoping they would consequently leave the country or at least adopt a less active level of participation in the political arena. He asserted that the regime knows all too well that the MB is a force to be reckoned with, since it is highly popular on the street, adding that the regime is unable to engage in fair competition hence, its use of the deplored ‘Emergency Law’. Habib maintained that the judicial rulings were unfair and that the military and special courts used by the regime had squandered any sense of security for the Egyptian citizen.
 
He described the unjust rules against the MB leaders as a step in a systematic war against the group after their victory in the 2005 parliamentary session which was also used against MB Deputy Chairman, Khairat Al-Shater, who is currently serving a 7-year-prison sentence.
Habib expects that the system will continue in its abuse of the law especially with the upcoming presidential elections.