Abstract
Due process guarantees lie at the heart of any legitimate legal system, serving as a critical safeguard against arbitrary state power and as a foundation for the rule of law. Yet their meaning and implementation vary significantly across legal traditions and political contexts.
This article examines the scope and limitations of due process guarantees in the Middle East, focusing on Egypt and Saudi Arabia as illustrative case studies. While both jurisdictions formally recognize procedural protections within their constitutional and legal frameworks, the practical application of these guarantees often diverges from international standards.
The article analyzes core due process principles—such as the right to a fair trial, judicial independence, access to counsel, and protections against arbitrary detention—through a comparative lens. In Egypt, it explores the tension between constitutional commitments and emergency or security-based practices that may constrain procedural rights. In Saudi Arabia, it evaluates the role of Sharia-based legal structures alongside codified regulations, highlighting both areas of convergence with and divergence from widely accepted due process norms. By situating these systems within broader international human rights frameworks, the article argues that due process in the region is shaped by a complex interaction of legal tradition, institutional design, and political context. Ultimately, it contends that while formal legal reforms signal progress, persistent structural and practical challenges continue to limit the full realization of procedural justice.
Recommended Citation
Mohamed Arafa,
When the Tail Wags the Dog: The Game of Justice and the Elusive Quest for Due Process in the Middle East,
50
S. Ill. U. L.J.
329
(2026).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol50/iss2/6