A controversial issue recently emerged on the political scene after MP Gamal Zahran presented a draft law to parliament which allowed for the trial of the President and Prime Minister while in office in cases of corruption, bribery, or abuse of power. This begs the question: does not the Egyptian Constitution include such a law?
The law exists
Article 85 of the Egyptian Constitution stipulates that the president of the Republic can only be charged with high treason or with a serious crime if one third of the parliament proposes such a move, and the charge can only be declared if two thirds of MPs vote for it. Article 85 goes on to stipulate that once the declaration is released, the president is temporarily relieved of his position and duties and the vice-president will take over until the conviction is dealt with. The president’s impeachment will be held before a special court formed according to the law, and if the president is found guilty he will be permanently barred from office while still meeting the penalties related to his offence.
In spite of the right given to parliament to discredit any minister and to request the seclusion of the president by the 1971 Constitution, this has never occurred in the history of Egyptian politics.
According to Rifaat al-Saïd, head of the leftist Tagammu party, the law already exists in the Egyptian Constitution. Dr Saïd says that its clauses only need to be activated, which, he adds, is very difficult since it involves activating the country’s democratic tools within a political climate that is far from ready for it.
The law is a must
Salah Eissa, editor-in-chief of the Cairo weekly cultural paper al-Qahira disagrees with Dr Saïd in that while it is true that the Constitution already includes articles on impeaching a president, prime minister or government ministers, these articles are not sustained by the rule of law. He therefore agrees with Mr Zahran that it is reasonable to call for the issuance of a law for the trial of these personalities. If this law were to be passed, many of the details related to the issue would be clarified, such as the penalties awaiting the culprit as well as whose responsibility it is to take the case to court.
Mr Eissa told Watani that since 1971 there has been no law to support the Constitution articles in question owing to one of two possibilities. The first was that parliamentary seats were mainly occupied by members of the ruling system’s political party, and the second was that it was in the ruling system’s interest not to have a law to condemn its principals.
Will they allow it
Mounir Megahed, Head of Egyptians Against Religious Discrimination (EARD), describes the passing of this law as inevitable, especially during this current period of internal political reform. Dr Megahed was not sure as to how far the ruling system would allow such a law, since no minister had ever been tried while in office. According to him, presenting an act of this type could only be the responsibility of MPs.
On the same front lawyer and human rights activist Naguib Gabraïl said he would support the issuance of this law. As there was a law against illegal profits, and to monitor and govern ministers’ wealth, there should be a law to govern their violations. Gabraïl thinks that the ruling system will probably allow this law because if it does not this would only reflect on its wish to hide its corruption.