 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 July 2000 Issue No. 491 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 July 2000 Issue No. 491
|
||
| 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 Letters Missing the point
By Shaden ShehabJudicial sources speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly were divided in their reaction to the recent upheaval caused by a landmark Supreme Constitutional Court ruling and the government's consequent course of action. While many welcomed the government's handling of the unusual case, remarking that it was the most rational and practical of all available options, others dismissed the response as mere political manoeuvring, claiming the government should have taken more radical action.
"From a practical point of view, the decision was a right step in the right direction," Counsellor Awad El-Morr, former chairman of the Supreme Constitutional Court, told the Weekly. "There may be some discrepancies in certain areas, but the outcome will not only be for the better, but for the best."
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Gamal El-Nasharti, a lawyer who ran in the parliamentary elections of 1990, and has been hailed as a new era in the electoral process. El-Morr affirmed that full judicial supervision will ensure fair elections and the "opposition will not have an excuse if it does not win a great number of seats. Likewise, the ruling party runs the risk of not gaining an overwhelming majority, like it always has."
Zakariya Shalash, head of the Court of Cassation, praised the government's action, maintaining that the government's decision to summon the People's Assembly and the Shura Council to amend the law was "legally correct." Shalash argued that because the ruling was based on a lawsuit contesting the 1990 elections and not the last elections in 1995, the People's Assembly and the Shura Council could not be considered "null and void." Furthermore, the court's ruling had not been published in the official gazette, meaning it had not yet taken effect.
"Amending article 24 in accordance with the court's ruling is an excellent opportunity to organise fair elections," Shalash said. "Were the next elections to be organised in accordance with Law 13 for the year 2000, they would have been unconstitutional." When Law 13 for this year was amended in April, the new reading had it that, in addition to the principal polling stations, one judge should be appointed to a number of auxiliary stations. The amendment did not state that one judge be appointed to every auxiliary station.
"With his wisdom, the president solved the problem and saved the coming parliament from being unconstitutional," Shalash said, sighing in relief.
Mohamed Merghani, a professor of constitutional law at Cairo University, agreed. Merghani applauded the government's action as "exemplary," adding that it "should please all segments of society." He dismissed claims that postponing the publication of the Constitutional Court's decision in the official gazette was a form of political manoeuvring, instead noting that it was "an intelligent way out" of a legal fix. The constitution stipulates that rulings made by the Constitutional Court are only valid once they are published in the official gazette. There is a 15-day grace-period for publishing the ruling. The court's ruling had not been published at the time the legal amendments were approved by the People's Assembly and Shura Council.
"The government complied with the Constitutional Court's decision and saved itself from any embarrassment that might have arose from other options," Merghani said.
Tarek El-Bishri, former deputy chairman of the State Council disagreed, arguing that the move merely sidestepped the ruling instead of facing it head on. "The government sidestepped publishing the ruling in the official gazette in order to delay the legal effects of the court's ruling, instead of respecting it and publishing it immediately," he said, indicating that the government should have opted for another solution instead of claiming that the ruling does not apply to the last parliamentary elections. "The court's ruling does not deal with the 1990 elections as such, but with a legal text. The proof is that the law was amended to comply with the court's decision," El-Bishri said.
"It would have been better if a presidential decree was issued for a nationwide referendum on the dissolution of the People's Assembly and new parliamentary elections," he added.
Mohamed El-Gammal, former chairman of the State Council, expressed a similar sentiment, claiming that the government's action is null and void because the incumbent Parliament and Shura Council are illegal. Agreeing with El-Bishri, he said that the last People's Assembly and Shura Council elections were based on the article which the court ruled to be unconstitutional.
"The government is manoeuvring and abusing the fact that the public doesn't know -- or understand -- what the court ruling means," El-Gammal said. "The government should have published the ruling the next day, instead of postponing publication until it finds a way out that would save it the embarrassment."
El-Gammal offered a final word of caution: "The judges appointed to oversee polling stations should be armed with immunity and independence from the executive authority. District attorneys or prosecutors linked to the general prosecutor's office -- which, in turn, is attached to the Ministry of Justice -- may not be as impartial. So we should not be very optimistic concerning the next elections," he said.
Related stories:
Piling up the charges
No need for panic?
Off the books
