As soon as the time came to appeal against the verdict issued by the Egyptian Criminal Court in the case of Egyptian businessman Hisham Talaat Moustafa and former police officer Mohsen Al-Sukkari, which had determined that they were both to be executed after having been convicted for the murder of Lebanese singer Suzanne Tamim, the Egyptian and international media started a new season of dealing with the case, one which will go on until the Court of Appeal announces its decision. The court will either remand the case, making it return to the starting point and beginning another round of judicial procedures under the Criminal Court to reexamine it, or will revoke the appeal, making the sentence valid and in effect, and Moustafa and Sukkari's days numbered. And with the beginning of a new season of the media dealing with the issue, questions arise: why do some make themselves the object of suspicion without reason? Why do they completely disregard professional and ethical standards, and break the laws that determine the limits of dealing with cases being examined in court? Certainly there are those who have vested interests and adopt stances that match these interests, whether alongside the businessman or against him, and there is a conflict of interests between some of those concerned with the case. Indeed, there are some who consider that their interests will suffer damage if the appeal is revoked and businessman Moustafa executed, whereas others consider that the death sentence being executed will bring them certain benefits, and thus adopt stances that drive towards revoking the appeal. Yet what is surprising is that some media outlets have involved themselves as parties in the case and begun to adopt stances towards the sentence issued by the Criminal Court to execute the defendants Mostafa and Sukkari. Those media outlets now seek to offer the Court of Appeal suggestions, in hopes that it will issue a decision matching the wishes of this or that media outlet. The Criminal Court had issued a decision banning the publishing of details of the case or of what was taking place at court hearings, after having found that some television shows had set up court hearings in their studios, where they would present the audience with the evidence and the details of the case, allowing the defendants' lawyers or the Public Prosecutor to display defense statements onscreen, and that some newspapers had done the same. Members of the media protested the decision to ban publishing, and some turned to the judicial system to try and stop the decision. But by then the verdict had been issued, and had been followed by media campaigns that either supported and blessed it or objected to it and sought to have it overturned. Egyptian circles thus became busy discussing the restrains placed on publication and defense, or the decision to ban publishing about the case. The function of the media may be to present the facts, obtain information and transmit it to their readers, listeners or viewers. And it is only natural for some media outlets to be connected to a business man or a nominal party, and to thus seek to safeguard their interests. However, the facts of the Suzanne Tamim case have revealed that the matter exceeds that of interests, and that competition between various media outlets has driven most of them to exceed all boundaries of professional standards and ethics, in order to achieve a false media victory. Furthermore, haste, inaccuracy and competitive drive have brought some media outlets to be suspected of “cashing in” to promote certain information, either to businessman Moustafa's benefit or against it, to improve his legal situation or to cause it detriment. In any event, the Court of Appeal will issue its decision regarding the case in a few weeks. Certainly the reactions to the decision will be broad, and political – and perhaps media – settling of accounts will definitely take place, since media chaos has become like the chaos of buildings, streets and means of transportation. The case of Suzanne Tamim has received great attention in all circles, going beyond the borders of Egypt to the Arab world and perhaps to some Western countries, for the well-known reasons regarding the identity of one of the perpetrators and the victim, as well as the circumstances and the details of the crime. Furthermore, the death sentence of defendants Moustafa and Sukkari has increased interest in the details of the case, and such interest is sure to increase further over the next few weeks, as will the fierceness of the fight to safeguard interests, to achieve media monopoly and to pray to God for justice to be done, whether among those supporting or opposing the defendants Talaat and Sukkari.
