Egypt’s first post-revolution Parliament which was voted in last January has already churned out a deluge of legislation. Yet the overwhelmingly Islamist Parliament has been the scene of
WATANI International
3 June 2012
Egypt’s first post-revolution Parliament which was voted in last January has already churned out a deluge of legislation. Yet the overwhelmingly Islamist Parliament has been the scene of conflict between the Islamist majority on one side and the liberals and non-Islamist MPs on the other, and it is widely alleged that the Islamists have exploited their legislative authority to serve their agendas and interests.
For the benefit of the Islamists
It all started with the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the majority party in Parliament and Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, imposing a hegemony over Parliament by appointing their MPs, and to a lesser extent the MPs of the Salafi al-Nur party, as heads and members of the various parliamentary committees. This move, naturally, paved the road to the proposal of Islamist-oriented laws.
The most recent crisis, and the most serious to date, occurred when the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) vociferously criticised a bill proposed by Salafi MPs to restructure the SCC’s board of commissioners whose members are, according to a 1979 law, appointed by the president of the republic for a [renewable] three-year term. The Court is the highest judicial authority in Egypt and it alone undertakes judicial control with respect to the constitutionality of laws and regulations and the interpretation of legislative texts in the manner prescribed by law. It is also empowered to settle competence disputes between judicial and administrative courts.
The recent bill proposed that the members of the board should not be appointed but should be elected or assigned to the job according to their seniority. It would include the senior judges of the courts of Cassation, Appeals, and the State Council. Its chief commissioner would be the head of the Court of Cassation.
Set the terrorists free
Following an emergency meeting of the SCC, its chief commissioner Hatem Bagato who described the bill as “dubious”, said Parliament was attempting to terrorise the court in order to serve its own interests. Parliament, he said, was seeking to void the court’s judicial oversight on legislation and render its decisions non-binding by reformulating the court’s system of operation and restructuring its board. As it stands, the board includes 19 judges with some 45 to 50 years of judicial experience each.
Political analysts say the legislation may be an attempt to pressure the court to prevent it from ruling on the constitutionality of the law for parliamentary elections. It is feared that, should the SCC rule that law unconstitutional, it would lead to the dissolution of the current Parliament.
Another draft law introduced by the Jamaa Islamiya MP Amer Abdul-Raheem, called for a law to afford full political amnesty to those convicted in political crimes during the period from 1976 until 2011. This proposal came under fire from Coptic and non-Islamist MPs who sensed it was tailored to release Islamists spending time behind bars for terrorist crimes. MP Suzie Adly reminded that among these ‘political prisoners’ were those who looted and burned gold stores, exchange bureaux, and tourist company offices in the 1970s and 1980s, to fund their Islamist terrorist activities. Judge Omar al-Sharif warned against extending amnesty to terrorists, since this is bound to have grave consequences on the national security front.
New battlefronts
The Islamists in Parliament opened a new battlefront with the press when the Shura Council, the upper house of Parliament and the body in charge of the Supreme Press Council, said it was stipulating 14 new standards on the basis of which chairmen and chief editors of State-owned papers are selected. In the case of privately-owned papers, the Shura said, it was looking into a regulatory code to apply to them. The feeling among journalists and media people is that there is a plan to curtail freedom of expression for the benefit of Islamist currents.
Among the most notorious ‘tailored laws’ has been the law of political isolation, which is now being seen by the SCC to judge its legality. The law, which bans anyone who was among the political establishment of the previous regime from nomination to public office, was specifically proposed to prevent Omar Soliman, the chief of intelligence under Mubarak but nonetheless widely respected, from contending the presidency. In any case, Soliman was not allowed to run on procedural grounds.
Battling moderate Islam
Al-Azhar, the 10th century Islamic institution considered the topmost authority on Sunni Islam, and today seen as the stronghold of moderate Islam, was not spared by the Islamist MPs. The Salafi Ali Qattamesh introduced a bill aiming at making the top positions of al-Azhar accessible to hardline Islamists, thus practically harnessing the institution’s role, which is seen as enlightened. The bill requires that the dean of al-Azhar should be elected, not appointed by the president, and that the institution should no longer be the reference on religious issues.
Other plans discussed by parliament include the annulment of English language teaching in schools; reducing the marriageable age for women from the current 18 years to a proposed 14 or even 12 years of age with no need for their consent; and permitting the practice of female circumcision which is criminalised under current law.
The Salafi front also proposed a draft law to allow police or military staff to wear beards, a flagrant religious symbol.
Normal for the majority
Judge Adel Zaki Andrawus, head of the Cairo Court of Appeals, told Watani that the Islamists’ hegemony is no surprise; they form the parliamentary majority, he said, and it is normal that they should impose their imprint on the legislative scene in Egypt. For his part, Judge Maher Sami, deputy head of the Constitutional Court, refused to comment on the tailoring of bills, and said the SCC is the only authority in a position to pronounce an opinion on their legitimacy.
It is the flurry of legislative activity, however, that has been drawing the attention of Judge Zakariya Abdel-Aziz, head of the Judges Club, who told Watani that this was one of the most positive signs since the 2011 revolution.
Monopolising authority
Dr Wagdy Thabet Ghobrial, professor of Constitutional Law, Public Freedoms and Political Sciences with La Rochelle University, wrote to Watani on the issue of the conflicts between the practices of parliament and the competence of the Constitutional Court:
Any observer of the practices of the parliamentary political majority will notice an alarming pattern, Dr Ghobrial wrote. It is obvious that parliament is adopting one trend flawlessly, and that is to monopolise authority and power. One flagrant example was the foundation of the constituent assembly which was to draft the new constitution. The assembly was later dissolved following a court order. However, to constrict the powers of the SCC instead of backing it and broadening its competence is a severe violation of the judicial guarantees backing up rights and freedoms.
Parliament should have expanded the competence of the SCC to include the authority to look into the constitutionality of bills prior to the enactment of laws. The SCC can currently only decide on the constitutionality of existing laws that have already been passed.
Disdain of law
According to Dr Ghobrial, the bill for restructuring the SCC has drawn the disdain of law and judiciary experts for the obvious antagonism it expresses against the supremacy of the law. In fact, the failure of parliament to gratify the various professionals sectors, such as university professors, is in itself alarming, he wrote, since it reflects a wish to monopolise power and an incapacity to conduct democratic dialogue with others. As if the relation between the predominantly Islamist parliament and the other State institutions should metamorphose into a relation between a dictating party and an obliging party, which is a backward and outdated concept of mature political practices.
As I see it, Dr Ghobrial explained, Egyptians just need to realise the amount of time the members of the People’s Assembly (PA) have lost in discussing unfruitful, baseless rhetoric such as annulling the texts that criticise female circumcision.
“In my scientific capacity as expert in constitutional affairs and my personal capacity as an Egyptian citizen, I can only warn the PA against any attempt to trespass on the competence of either the SCC or the judicial authority, which are the last strongholds to defend Egyptians in face of the repetitive attacks addressed to rights and freedoms.
Not binding?
“The PA’s trifling with the competence of the constitutional judiciary has led MPs to decide that SCC rulings are not binding when it comes to PA legislation. I consider this a flagrant abuse of power and a political absurdity. The SCC judge is entitled to exclude any bill that contradicts any international treaty or accord to which Egypt is signatory, especially in regard to human rights and basic freedoms—which are not being currently applied. I thus suggest that the new constitution should include a clause that would guaratee such treaties in Egyptian law. The new constitution should grant the president the power to dissolve the PA in the case that legislative practices that violate constitutional rulings create political crises.
It should remain clear that the aim of the Egyptian Revolution was to restitute to Egyptians their lost rights and freedoms, rather than confiscate them. The sole role of constitutional institutions is to endeavour to achieve that goal in every respect.”