Egyptians held their breath last weekend as a new episode in the bitter conflict between the presidency and the judiciary unfolded
Egyptians held their breath last weekend as a new episode in the bitter conflict between the presidency and the judiciary unfolded, finally drawing to a close last Sunday with the decision that Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud remains prosecutor general. But this by no means promises to be the end of confrontations between the two institutions, as long as the presidency appears intent on imposing its hegemony over the judiciary which has of late issued several rulings that the presidency and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)—to which President Mursi belongs—see as hostile and threatening to their interests.
The presidency reneged on its decision to discharge Mahmoud only 48 hours into the crisis. This brings to mind a similar decision by President Mursi last July to restore the People’s Assembly which had been pronounced illegitimate and ordered dissolved by the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC). The SCC stood its ground and nullified the President’s decision.
Surprise announcement
The recent episode with Mahmoud began when Egypt woke up to a surprise announcement by the presidency on Thursday evening that Mahmoud would be delegated to the Vatican as Egypt’s ambassador, implying he would no longer be prosecutor general. Mahmoud, however, said he would under no condition quit his office, nor would he accept the new assignment.
Only two days earlier, the Cairo Criminal Court had acquitted all the defendants charged with killing the demonstrators in what was known in the media as the ‘the battle of the camel’, an attack that was waged against the revolutionaries on 2 February 2011. The court said there was no conclusive evidence to incriminate any of the defendants, who had been top men in the Mubarak regime, As soon as the ruling was out, all hell broke loose on the Egyptian street. The Prosecutor General was harshly criticised for laxity in gather incriminating evidence. And even though this was not the first time the public prosecution was seen to have short-performed, it was pointless to make this allegation in this particular case since the prosecution was not involved in the investigations on the battle of the camel, which were handled by the military judiciary and the Justice Ministry.
Once the decision to ‘discharge’ Mahmoud was announced, Islamists—led by MB’s Freedom and Justice Party—applauded.
Judicial institutions were up in arms against the presidency meddling with the judiciary. The Judges Club rejected the presidential decree and said judges would resort to “escalatory measures” until the decision is annulled.
Seculars and liberals were divided between those who rejected the decision to discharge Mahmoud as ‘illegal and unconstitutional’, and those who saw Mahmoud’s performance as inadequate and were glad he would go.
So many stories
It did not help that so many stories had been leaked to the media on the details of the incident. The Cairo daily al-Masry al-Youm splashed a headline that the Vatican, when contacted by the paper, said it had been informed by Egypt two weeks earlier of Mahmoud’s assignment. The Justice Minister, Ahmed Mekki said that, during negotiations with the presidency, Mahmoud rejected the assignment to the Vatican, but said he wouldn’t mind an assignment to an Arab country.
The legal consultant to the presidency Mohamed Fouad Gadallah said Mahmoud had tendered his resignation—given that the law stipulates that the president may not discharge the prosecutor general—following the public outcry against the ruling on the battle of the camel. Gadallah said the President would appoint a new prosecutor general without looking into nominations by the Supreme Judiciary Council (SJC). Egyptian law stipulates that the president appoints the prosecutor general from among a list of nominees drawn by the SJC, but he may not discharge him. The prosecutor general only leaves office if he reaches the legal retirement age of 70, or in the incident of his presenting an official appeal to be exempted from his post. This achieves the separation of authorities and protects the judiciary against interference by the executive authority.
Pressures and threats
Mahmoud himself announced he had rejected the post of ambassador, and was retaining his position as prosecutor general, in order to uphold the judiciary and stand against the dominion of the executive authority. He issued a statement divulging pressures and threats he had been subjected to by the Justice Minister and the [Islamist] head of the Constituent Assembly, Hussam al-Ghuryani. He said they had hinted that the demonstrators would assault him should he refuse to relinquish his post as prosecutor general.
Mahmoud’s statement triggered demonstrations against him by Islamists, who vowed to keep him form accessing his office at the House of the High Court in Downtown Cairo. Seculars, however, countered by demonstrations of their own, to empower Mahmoud to access his office and carry out his responsibilities.
Members of the SJC met President Mursi and handed him a memo that demanded that Mahmoud should remain in office, to which Mursi agreed. The spokesman of the presidency, Yasser Ali, said that the SJC presented a ‘plea’ to Mursi in that regard. Regardless of whether it was a demand or a plea, the end result is that the presidency reneged on its decision, and the judiciary succeeded in upholding the law and its independence.
The following day Mahmoud went to his office amidst strict security, escorted by hundreds of judges and members of the prosecution in a show of solidarity.
Who or what to believe
Even though the 48-hour crisis has been dissipated, Egyptians are left with countless unanswered questions. What is the presidency after? Was the incident a real attempt to respond to public opinion against Mahmoud, or did it represent another episode in the seemingly non-endless attempts to replace non-MB top-ranking officials with MB members? Why did the presidency, for the second time this year, take decisions that defied the law? And where exactly did the large team of presidential consultants and aides come in such decisions? Did they advise Mursi to defy the law, or were they never consulted in the first place?
Egypt claims to have a free transparent media, yet the media has come under fire from the presidency for having allegedly sparked this crisis and egged it on. And with all the contradictions and unsubstantiated reporting, Egyptians find themselves in the position of not knowing who or what to believe.
So for the second time this year, the judiciary has come out victorious over the executive authority. More confrontations, however, appear in store for these two key institutions.
Watani International
16 October 2012