Over 50 Egyptian lawyers challenge controversial 2016 island transfer agreement with Saudi Arabia

More than 50 Egyptian lawyers have filed an appeal contesting a 2016 agreement that transferred control of the Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia, according to The New Arab.

The islands, historically administered by Egypt for decades, were handed over under a deal that lawyers argue violates the Egyptian constitution. They claim the constitution requires public approval via a referendum for decisions involving the transfer of national territory.

“This agreement cannot be enforced without the consent of the people,” said Ali Ayub, one of the lawyers leading the legal challenge.

Despite the controversy, the agreement reportedly brought significant economic benefits to Egypt. It opened the Red Sea to oil and gas exploration and attracted billions of dollars in Saudi investment.

Fueling the latest legal efforts are local media reports alleging that Saudi Arabia had discussed plans with the United States to establish a military base on one of the islands. The base would reportedly serve to protect navigation routes in the Red Sea.

These developments come as U.S. President Donald Trump prepares for his first official visit to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, amid ongoing U.S. military operations against Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen.

A Saudi official, speaking anonymously, has denied any intention by the kingdom to invite the U.S. to establish a military presence on either of the islands.

This appeal marks the latest in a series of legal battles over the 2016 agreement to transfer the Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia.

In January 2017, Egypt’s Higher Administrative Court annulled the agreement. However, in March 2018, the Supreme Constitutional Court reversed that decision, ruling that the signing of such agreements falls squarely within the executive’s political authority.

It remains uncertain whether the Higher Administrative Court will uphold Ayub’s appeal and overturn the agreement. As of now, no date has been set for a ruling in the case.