The lives of some 450 Christian reconverts—Christian-born converts to Islam who later reverted to their original Christianity and wish to be officially recognised as Christians—have been placed on hold. A reasonable number of these reconverts had never converted to Islam in the first place. It was one of their parents who had at one point in his or her life done so and, whether or not he or she later reverted to Christianity, the children were considered by the State to be Muslims. They cannot obtain official ID documents recognising them as Christian, meaning they cannot have IDs once they are 16, cannot sit for official examinations, cannot perform military service, cannot marry or, if they die, cannot be given funeral services and their families cannot claim their inheritance.
Short-lived
A ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court last month had allowed 15 reconverts to obtain official documents citing them as Christians, albeit including the phrase ‘previously proclaimed Islam as their religion’. Despite protests by rights activists against the latter provision, the reconverts were elated at the right to be again cited as Christian. But their elation was short-lived. When the reconvert Bishay Farag Bishay applied for a new ID the Civil Register Office rejected his application claiming the computerised system of ID cards only allowed a one-word entry—Muslim, Christian, or Jew—in the religion box. Before the matter could be resolved, Islamist lawyer Abdel-Megid al-Enani also contested the ruling on grounds that it violated the second article in the Constitution, which stipulates that Islam is the State religion and Islamic sharia or legal code the principle source of legislation.
In a recent move described by lawyer Naguib Gabraïl as “very serious” and involves “severe repercussions”, the Administrative Court (AC) consequently referred 30 reconvert cases of to the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC). It applied for a ruling on the constitutionality of the second paragraph in article 47 of the civil law, which stipulates that whenever any data is modified—including religion—official documents should be issued to the effect by the respective authority. The AC questioned whether article 47 violates article 2 of the Constitution. It is expected that the SCC would take some three years to issue a ruling, Mr Gabraïl said.
Who contests?
The law stipulates that cases are referred to the SCC if either the AC or one of the adversaries questions the constitutionality of the case in question. In the case of the 30 Christian reconverts, the adversary was the Ministry of Interior which did not contest the constitutionality of the disputed article. It was the Islamist lawyer Abdel-Megid al-Enani who aggressively contested the case. To date, however, Mr Enani’s contest has not been accepted yet by the court.
Mr Gabraïl believes that the 450 reconverts who have cases with the AC, together with rights groups, should present a memo to the President who alone is justified to pass a verdict in case of a dispute between the legislative, executive, or judicial authorities. Mr Gabraïl believes that the referral of these cases to the SCC confirms Coptic fears that the second article of the Constitution may be used to abrogate the citizenship rights stipulated in article 1 and the freedom of belief stipulated in article 46 of the Constitution.
Article 1 or Article 2
Hafez Abu-Saeda, member of the National Council for Human Rights said that some courts incorrectly explain the second article of the Constitution. Mr Abu-Saeda believes that the SCC is the right authority to put an end to the controversy over the discrepancy between articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution. He stressed to Watani that a conclusive decision should be reached regarding freedom of belief which ought to be emphasised and supported by legislation. He said that a ruling of the unconstitutionality of article 47 of the civil law would be a violation to the international human rights treaties of which Egypt is signatory, and civil society organisations will definitely contest the ruling. In perfect agreement Kamil Seddiq, secretary of the Coptic Orthodox Community or Melli Council remarked that the ruling would violate the international human rights standards but, “We will not lose hope, he insisted, there must be light at the end of the tunnel”.
Modern Egypt
“The gap between international law and human rights principles on one hand and the Egyptian law on the other, especially concerning the freedom of belief, is getting wider by the day,” Mohamed al-Sayed Saïd of al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies bitterly said. This gap, he said, threatens citizenship rights including Copts rights, but the real problem is that an internal judicial war is erupting due to contradictory laws and legislation. It is civil society, Dr Saïd said, that stands to pay a hefty price in its peace and freedom, especially within the prevalent unaccommodating climate. He concluded that the solution lies in envisioning a project of modern Egypt where society’s priorities are determined regardless of any religious bias.
