Egyptian TV presenter, 39, and 11 others are sentenced to death over drugs

← Back to the feed

Egyptian TV presenter, 39, and 11 others are sentenced to death over drugs

Developing story first seen 3 hours ago

Daily Mail · 3 hours ago

An Egyptian television presenter, Sara Khalifa, has been sentenced to death by hanging alongside 11 co-defendants after being convicted of manufacturing and trafficking drugs in Cairo. The 39-year-old, best known for fronting the crime-focused programme Mission Impossible and with over 2.5 million Instagram followers, was found guilty of forming an organised criminal gang that produced narcotics-making materials for trafficking and possessed unlicensed firearms and ammunition.

Egyptian authorities seized more than 750kg of narcotics and raw materials, and uncovered two apartments used as drug laboratories along with unlicensed weapons. The defendants, who also owns a production company, were accused of importing materials for synthetic drug production from abroad, and the verdict followed consultation with Egypt's Grand Mufti, as required by law in capital cases. Khalifa was separately sentenced to five years in prison over the kidnapping and assault of a young man; Egypt applies the death penalty for offences including drug trafficking, terrorism and premeditated murder, having issued 541 death sentences last year according to the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms.

  • TV presenter Sara Khalifa sentenced to death for drug trafficking in Egypt
  • 11 co-defendants also sentenced; 750kg of narcotics seized
  • Khalifa also given five years for separate kidnapping and assault case

New here? Start with this

Sara Khalifa is a well-known Egyptian television presenter, recognised for hosting a crime-focused programme and for a large following on social media. She has now been convicted in connection with a large-scale drugs operation in Cairo, alongside eleven co-defendants, after investigators say they found large quantities of narcotics, drug-making materials and unlicensed weapons linked to the group.

Egypt retains the death penalty and applies it for a range of serious offences, including drug trafficking, terrorism and premeditated murder. Because a death sentence is involved, the case also required sign-off from the Grand Mufti, Egypt's most senior Islamic legal authority, which is a standard step in the country's legal process for capital cases.

The case has drawn wide attention both because of Khalifa's public profile and because it highlights how frequently Egypt hands down death sentences, with rights groups tracking hundreds of such rulings each year. It also raises questions about the country's justice system and how cases involving celebrities are handled compared with ordinary defendants.

Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of the sentence would argue that Egypt is exercising its sovereign right to determine proportionate punishment for what prosecutors describe as large-scale, organised drug manufacturing involving 750kg of narcotics, illegal firearms and an international supply chain, offences that cause immense and lasting harm to communities. They would note that the verdict followed due process under Egyptian law, including the mandatory consultation with the Grand Mufti required in capital cases, and that treating drug trafficking severely reflects a legitimate policy judgement that such crimes warrant the strongest possible deterrent, regardless of the defendant's public profile.

The case against

Critics of the sentence would argue that capital punishment for drug offences is disproportionate and inconsistent with international human rights norms, which hold that the death penalty should be reserved for the most serious crimes involving intentional loss of life. They would point to Egypt's high volume of death sentences, 541 in a single year according to independent monitors, as evidence of a justice system prone to overuse of capital punishment, and would raise broader concerns about fair trial guarantees, judicial independence and the irreversibility of execution in a legal system that human rights observers have long scrutinised.

More coverage

Health Medicine World

Read the full article at the source →