 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 April 2000 Issue No. 477 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 April 2000 Issue No. 477
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Books Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Judging the poll
By Omayma Abdel-Latif
The modifications introduced by the government to the law on the exercise of political rights has sparked debate not only in political but judicial circles as well. Opposition newspapers spoke of "simmering discontent" within the judiciary. Some judges speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly said fears were mounting that they might be held "responsible for the undemocratic practices which usually blemish elections."
The amendment, according to Councillor Zakaryia Shalash, deputy head of the Court of Cassation, does not guarantee full judicial supervision over elections. "It merely increases the number of judges supervising the main polling stations," Shalash told the Weekly.
He argued that judicial supervision of auxiliary polling stations is necessary because "this is where the election process begins and ends."
"The judges cannot safeguard the integrity of elections as long as they are not appointed as heads of these stations where most of the vote-rigging and thuggery take place," said Shalash, who has been supervising parliamentary elections for the past 20 years.
According to Councillor Mohamed El-Gamal, former head of the State Council, the amendment was meant to expand the judicial authorities' role by placing all polling stations under their supervision, but it resulted in reducing the judiciary's powers. "Judges are simply required to tour the auxiliary stations and, once they are out, things get out of control," El-Gamal told the Weekly.
Councillor Abdel-Rahim Nafie, head of the Legislative and Constitutional Committee of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), said it was practically impossible to make judges, whose number is limited, supervise the auxiliary stations. "The available judges cannot cover all these stations and, therefore, their mission will be only to tour them briefly," Nafie said.
But Shalash was quick to suggest that in order to facilitate the judges' supervision of auxiliary stations, their number should be reduced and adjacent stations moved to the same building.
El-Gamal and others believe that members of the judiciary should be immune against dismissal and that their election-related decisions should be binding. "They should have full authority to investigate any political misconduct during election time. They should be legally allowed to punish any candidate who incites acts of hooliganism and armed thuggery," El-Gamal added
Others believe the government should refrain from any interference if the judicial authority is to play a role in advancing political liberalisation. According to Judge Mohamed Reda, deputy chairman of the Judges Association, "When judges are delegated the authority to supervise elections, they must carry out the task to the fullest and the government should refrain from interfering."
To this end, judges unanimously decided in their second Justice Conference to either be in full charge of all stages of the election process until the declaration of results or abstain from participation. The law does not bar them from doing so, but many judges denied that they would refrain from supervising the elections. According to Reda, judges believe it is their national duty to prevent any attempt to rig the balloting and ensure that the people's voice is heard via the ballot boxes.
While many political analysts believe that the independent judicial authority is expected to play a role in safeguarding the transition to political reform, it is deemed that the interplay between the executive and judicial authorities is bound to affect the shape of the forthcoming elections.
