 |
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 A power above all
By Shaden ShehabAt times, parliament may enact a bill or amend a law, triggering a negative reaction among those concerned. What can they do? Take their case to the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC).
Regardless of the outcome, the court's ruling is never subject to question but is considered final and just.
"Since the establishment of the Supreme Constitutional Court everything has become better in our lives -- politically, economically and socially," said Awad El-Morr, the court's former chairman, in an Al-Ahram Weekly interview. "Its rulings are binding on all authorities. It is the power above all powers."
El-Morr said, "The SCC is not in conflict with the legislative or executive authorities. Its purpose is to prevent excess in the exercise of power and to strike down unconstitutional legislation." The court was established in 1969 by a presidential decree issued by the late President Gamal Abdel-Nasser. At the time, it was named the Supreme Court.
However, "Under the so-called 'abstention of the law', if a particular provision was found to be unconstitutional, it was not necessarily considered null and void. The courts were free to abide by it or not. Consequently, Supreme Court rulings were not binding. This lead to contradictory judgements," El-Morr said.
After President Anwar El-Sadat's rise to power, Articles 174 to 178 of the 1971 Constitution entrenched the independence of the SCC. However, it was not until 1979, with the enactment of Law 48, that its functions were explicitly defined. El-Morr believes that the delay was "because, until then, the executive authority considered the court a threat."
Since the passage of Law 48, the SCC has become a fully independent body "under the terms of the Constitution. However, what is in the Constitution does not always match what is done in actual practice. The independence and impartiality of the court rests strictly on the integrity of its members. They do not fear or wait to be rewarded by the executive authority. The judges of the SCC only listen to the dictates of their conscience," El-Morr said.
According to El-Morr, one of the most important rulings of the SCC was its decision that the overthrown royal family were entitled to full property rights despite the fact that the Revolution Command Council had confiscated much of their possessions after the 1952 revolution. El-Morr also regards the judgement on the unconstitutionality of the confiscation of agricultural land without adequate compensation to be another landmark ruling.
"We endorsed and supported privatisation and denied the public sector [the right] to have a dominant role in the development of the country. The court ruled that private investment must have priority over the public sector," El-Morr said.
In another liberal ruling, the SCC ruled that it was unconstitutional to reserve five per cent of university enrollment for the sons and daughters of armed forces members and university professors. This practice, according to the court, violated the principle of equal opportunity.
In 1981, the court continued this liberal trend. It ruled that the government dissolution of the Bar Association Council and its imposition of new legal statutes governing the association were an unjustified interference in syndicate affairs. These measures, therefore, were deemed unconstitutional.
Its track record protecting the autonomy of civil society is consistent. The SCC has ruled that levying taxes on expatriate Egyptians was unconstitutional and recently determined that the 1999 law regulating NGO activity was unconstitutional. Significantly, the 1984 and 1987 parliamentary elections were declared by the SCC in 1986 and 1990 to be unconstitutional due to the use of the slate system which dicriminates against independent candidates.
These are only a few examples within the hundreds of rulings handed down by the court. The reason that numerous laws run contrary to the constitution, according to El-Morr, is that generally "parliament has not been duly elected. Its members are not accountable to the people, but to the executive. They are the candidates of the executive authority that helped them win the elections. Therefore, they feel obliged to accept the bills submitted to them."
