The Justice System in Ancient Egypt
The Search for the Truth
Excerpt from
Historical Deception: The Untold Story of Ancient Egypt – 2 nd Ed.
by Moustafa Gadalla
Nation of Laws
Ancient Egypt was a nation of laws, from its earliest times. The superiority of their
legislature has always been acknowledged, by the ancient Greek and other writers, as the reason
for the long duration of their civilization.
The Egyptian laws were attributed and/or inspired b y Tehuti(Thoth). The neter
Tehuti(Thoth) personifies the divine intellect and it was he who uttered the words
commanded by Ra. His words were the first spoken and his words caused the
creation of the world.
He was equated to the Greek Hermes and to the Roman Mercury.
The main source of their laws came from a code of laws and jurisprudence,
known as the “Eight Books of Tehuti”, which all judges had to be thoroughly
skilled in. The Greeks, who equated Tehuti to their Hermes, called these books the “Eigh t
Books of Hermes” even though Hermes had nothing to do with them.
The number eight is associated with Tehuti and he was called “Master of the City of
Eight”.
Other laws and codes were subsequently and regularly added to the famous "Eight Books of
Tehuti”. The names of the earliest monarchs and sages, who had contributed the additional
codes, at successive periods, were acknowledged in historical records, with gratitude.
The Sicilian historian, Diodorus, informed us that the Egyptian laws were neither designed
to arouse men’s feelings about the prospect of distant rewards or punishments, nor to threaten
the possibility of divine vengeance. They were, on the contrary, immediate in their effect.
The laws and regulations were intended for the whole popu lation, including the Pharaoh,
who willingly complied, as Diodorus observed, with the rules of public and private life.
Records show that close advisors of Pharaohs were prosecuted and punished, for non -political
crimes.
Justice in Ancient Egypt – Excerpt from Historical Deception: The Untold Story of Ancient Egypt
1
The Judges
The administration of justice was well organized and played an important part in the state
affairs.
The judges had a special patron saint, Ma-at, the netert of truth (similar to modern -day
Lady of Justice). All judges of high rank served her as priests , and the chief justice wore a
little figure of Ma-at around his neck as a badge of office.
But who is this patron saint, Ma-at?
Ma-at personifies the principle of cosmic -order. She signifies all
order, law, harmony, equilibrium and justice. The Egypt ian texts recognize
her cosmic power, as the source without which the other neteru are
functionless.
The forty-two judges, at the final Day of Judgement, are under Ma-at’s
charge. (Read more about it under the chapter, The Egyptian Religion).
Ma-at is often shown in a double form representing the two opposing
sides of a litigation, because the scale of justice cannot balance without the equality of the
opposing forces.
She is usually portrayed as a woman, with her symbol, the ostrich feather.
Entrusting this important heavenly attribute to a netert signifies the ancient Egyptian
appreciation for women.
Ma-at was sometimes represented ‘having her eyes closed’ to ensure equal
justice for all. The modern -day blind-folded Lady of Justice is an imitatio n of
Ma-at.
The high integrity of the Egyptian concept of justice is also represented by
those statues at Ta-Apet(Thebes), of judges without hands, with the chief
justice having his eyes turned downwards, signifying, as Plutarch says, “that
Justice ought: neither to be accessible to bribes, nor guided by favor and
affection .”
The Egyptian High Court consisted of thirty judges, who served as priests of Ma-at. Ten
judges were chosen from each of the three cities — Ta-Apet(Thebes), Men-Nefer(Memphis),
and Onnu(Heliopolis). Diodorus said that this High Court was by no means inferior either to
the Areopagites of Athens, or to the senate of Lacedoemon.
These 30 individuals constituted the bench of judges. At their first meeting they elected the
president of the Court, with the title of Arch -judge. The city to which he belonged enjoyed the
privilege of returning another judge, to complete the number of the thirty from whom he had
been chosen.
In addition to the High Court with the president and the thir ty judges, each city, or capital
of a nome, had its own “County Court,” for the trial of minor and local offenses. The offices
Justice in Ancient Egypt – Excerpt from Historical Deception: The Untold Story of Ancient Egypt
2
occupied by these local and regional courts were held by the most upright and learned
individuals, to uphold the principles of Ma-at.
Court Proceedings
Besides impartiality and the principle whereby each case should be treated according to its
merits, another important feature of justice in ancient Egypt was the fact that it was
administered free of charge.
Depositions were taken before the trials. The complainant stated his case in writing. The
writ included all related particulars, such as offenses, extent of injury, witnesses, points of law
and requested judgements.
The defendant then, taking up the deposition of the opposing party, wrote his response to
each of the plaintiffs statements, either denying the charge, or arguing that the offense was not
of a serious nature; and suggesting that the damages were incompatible with the nature of the
crime.
The complainant replied in writing; and the accused having brought forward all he had to
say in his defense, the papers were given to the judges.
When the trial convened, the president, or arch -judge, put on the emblem of Truth. The
eight volumes which contained the laws of the land were placed close to him, in order to guide
his decision, or to enable him to solve a difficult question, by reference to a code, or to former
precedents, or to the opinion of some learned predecessor.
After reviewing the written depositions and questioning the witnesses, if any, the judges
made their decision. Their opinion only required to be ratified by the president, who then
proceeded, in virtue of his office, to pronounce judgment on the case.
They considered that this mode of proceeding was more likely to forward the ends of
justice, than when the judges listened to the statements of pleaders. Eloquence often has the
effect of fascinating, confusing and misleading the mind. Therefore, the persuasive argum ents
of oratory, which move the passions and excite the sympathy of the judges, were avoided.
Justice in Ancient Egypt – Excerpt from Historical Deception: The Untold Story of Ancient Egypt
3