Amr Adib Criminally Tried for Defamation Against Mortada Mansour: A New Chapter in a Long Legal Battle

The relevant investigative authorities in Egypt have decided to refer the media figure Amr Adib to criminal trial, following accusations of committing acts of defamation and slander against Counselor Mortada Mansour, along with the misuse of social media, in a new development that reignites one of the most controversial media cases in Egypt.

Details of the Accusations

The case dates back to an official complaint filed by Mortada Mansour, in which he accused Amr Adib of insulting him through statements and content published on social media platforms, considering that what was said against him constitutes crimes of defamation and slander punishable by law.
After examining the complaint and gathering evidence, the investigative authorities concluded that there was sufficient legal basis to initiate the criminal case, leading to a decision to refer the famous media figure to trial before the competent court.

Mutual Legal Precedents

This referral comes after the Economic Court had previously acquitted Mortada Mansour, the former president of Zamalek Club, of the charge of defaming media figure Amr Adib in one of the mutual cases between the two parties.

In this context, Tarek Jamil Said, the lawyer for media figure Amr Adib, stated that his client had previously filed a lawsuit against Mortada Mansour, accusing him of using inappropriate language and phrases that harm reputation and honor.

The lawyer clarified that the legal team submitted a complaint to the Public Prosecutor's Office and filed a direct misdemeanor case that was heard before the October Misdemeanor Court, before being later referred to the Economic Court for lack of jurisdiction.

Ongoing Legal Battle

These developments reflect the escalation of the legal war between Amr Adib and Mortada Mansour, which has seen a back-and-forth exchange of complaints and lawsuits over the past years, amid widespread media and public interest, given the fame of both parties and their influence on public opinion.
The upcoming sessions are expected to witness new legal confrontations in a case that once again places the limits of freedom of expression and the legal responsibilities of media figures under judicial scrutiny.