 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 8 - 14 June 2000 Issue No. 485 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 8 - 14 June 2000 Issue No. 485
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Demolition dilemmas
By Gihan ShahineThe country's historic buildings stand to lose ground -- literally. If Military Decree no.7 of 1998 is abrogated, it would signal a green light for bulldozers to raze the old palaces and villas, as well as other edifices of historic and architectural value, which it was designed to protect. The matter has become a bone of contention between those who would rather preserve the nation's architectural heritage, including government leaders, and those who seek quick real estate fortunes.
Confusion reigns at the construction engineering departments of the various governorates, which are responsible for issuing building and demolition permits. Since the State Council's Administrative Court announced that the decree should be repealed for running counter to Civil Law and the Constitution, the departments have been inundated by applications for demolition permits.
Governorate officials, however, will not be able to grant demolition permits until a final settlement is reached. Prime Minister Atef Ebeid is currently contesting the court's decision before the Supreme Administrative Court and has gone public with statements insisting that "the military decree is still in force."
The government's appeal will be examined by the Supreme Administrative Court on 14 June. Meanwhile, Cairo Governor Abdel-Rehim Shehata is launching a campaign against real-estate barons, stopping a number of demolition attempts in the districts of Heliopolis, Maadi, Zamalek, Garden City and Zeitoun.
The confusion began on 20 April, with a prime ministerial decree, no.925 of 2000, which announced the government's revocation of 13 decrees based on martial law no.106. These decrees were issued between 1996 and 1999 by the outgoing cabinet of Prime Minister Kamal El-Ganzouri. The abrogation of the decrees was aimed at addressing a current slump in the real estate market by easing restrictions on construction activities, the government said.
Controversy then erupted over whether decree no.7 of 1998 was among the annulled decrees. The government stepped in to clear the confusion, announcing that "this military order is in force and there will be no demolition of old villas."
Decree no.7 of 1998 imposes a prison sentence of at least one year on whoever violates the demolition ban. It also provides for punitive measures against any official who issues a demolition license. In case of villas that have already been razed, the owner is only allowed to build a structure of dimensions equal to those of the original villa.
The decree, however, was disputed on legal grounds. The Administrative Court based its ruling on the fact that "the original building codes ban the levelling down of sound edifices, villas and palaces included, located within city limits." Law no.605 of 1954 makes it obligatory for landlords to obtain a permit before the destruction of an edifice.
The court also made it clear that building codes regulate the demolition of all sound edifices, in general, and provide no exception to edifices of historic or architectural value, unless these structures are protected by the Antiquity Law. The exclusion of villas and palaces is thus considered illegal, according to the court ruling.
The court's decision, however, did not go down well with the government. The following day, Prime Minister Ebeid went public with statements arguing that while he "duly respects" the court ruling, "the law is evident and precise: it bans the demolition of villas and palaces and regulates the issuance of building permits in case destruction has already been carried out."
Ebeid also told the press that the court ruling, "is concerned with the military decree and not the building codes," and demanded that the two should not be "mixed up."
Ebeid's statement drew an angry reaction from judicial circles. Judges at the State Council criticised the government's "interference in court affairs."
"Legally, no one is authorised to interfere in, comment on, or influence a court judgement," maintained Mohamed Hamed El-Gamal, former president of the State Council.
Many legal experts are of the opinion that military decree no.7 of 1998 is unconstitutional. They argue that martial law is not designed to regulate civil business and matters related to personal property, imposing criminal penalties on violators. Military decrees, they explain, draw on the emergency law, which is designed to address crises of great urgency. In cases of civil business, however, parliament is the only legitimate channel to enact laws, they argue.
"It is against the constitutional principle of equality to prevent a landlord from disposing of his own property, under the pretext that his villa has an aesthetic value, when owners of ordinary structures can easily get a demolition permit," said Fawziya Abdel-Sattar, former head of the legislative committee of the People's Assembly. "It's not the landlord's fault that he owns a beautiful villa and he may have a good reason for demolishing it. If the government is really keen on preserving architectural heritage, it should compensate landlords and buy the edifices in question, rather than confiscate personal property."
Many preservationists, however, insist the decree is essential if the architectural heritage is to survive. Landlords started pulling down buildings as fast as they could when rumours that the ban was to be lifted began to spread last month. But the government quickly intervened.
Landlords, of course, stand to gain millions. The demolition of a villa and the construction of a high-rise apartment block in its place would bring in a fortune -- a temptation only few can resist.
