 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 28 Sep. - 4 Oct. 2000 Issue No. 501 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 28 Sep. - 4 Oct. 2000 Issue No. 501
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Elections Region International Economy Opinion Culture Special Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Defining full supervision
By Omayma Abdel-LatifThe friction that took place last week between senior members of the judiciary and the Justice Ministry -- the latter being part of the executive authority -- was proof, some analysts believe, that the implementation of full judicial supervision over parliamentary elections is not going to be smooth sailing. "Frequent interventions by the executive authority may hinder efforts to ensure the integrity of the ballot," Yehia El-Rifaie, honourary head of the Judges Club, told Al-Ahram Weekly. Counsellor El-Rifaie had launched a campaign in opposition newspapers demanding that the ''brakes be slammed on governmental intervention in judicial affairs via election supervision. "The instructions issued by both the Interior and Justice Ministries on the transport of ballot boxes from auxiliary polling stations to the vote-counting committees are blatantly unconstitutional," El-Rifaie said.
Angered by the issue, members of some judicial circles demanded the president's intervention to disentangle the overlapping responsibilities of the judicial and executive authorities. Last July, the Supreme Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional Article 24 of the law regulating the exercise of political rights because it stipulated that judges share the responsibility of overseeing the election process with administrative employees. The article was replaced by a new law authorising judges only to oversee auxiliary polling stations, as well as the principal, or vote-counting, ones.
Many judges have focused their concern on the conduct of the executive authority. This concern was further fuelled when the opposition Al-Wafd newspaper published a story on the instructions issued by the Interior Ministry. These included a provision that, after the end of the ballot, judges heading auxiliary polling stations should hand the ballot boxes to the chief of security for transport to the vote-counting committees. Opposition sources charged that the procedure could open the door for vote-rigging.
According to a judicial source, the issue of transporting the ballot boxes draws importance from the fact that vote-rigging may happen at any stage in the election process. "How do we know that the boxes are not going to be replaced by others or that they won't be opened and tampered with?" the judge said.
Another judge said the Interior Ministry's instructions are in complete violation of the law which states that the head of the auxiliary station should hand over the ballot boxes to the head of the vote-counting committee. In other words, the head of the auxiliary station is not allowed to delegate this responsibility to anybody else, including the chief of security.
According to Counsellor Zakaria Shalash, head of the Court of Cassation, the Interior Ministry's instructions are also in violation of Article 88 of the constitution providing for full judicial supervision over all stages of the elections. Handing over the ballot boxes to the police force would only result in putting the legality of the whole process to question, he said.
"In the final analysis, judges will be held responsible for whatever results come out of these elections and it seems to me that the credibility of the judiciary will be in the balance. If the elections produce results that would create suspicion of the judiciary favouring the ruling party, then people won't trust us any more," Shalash told the Weekly.
In order to eliminate any possibility of vote-rigging, one judge suggested that, since all polling stations are headed by judges, the judges heading the auxiliary stations should be responsible for counting the votes on the premises and reporting the results to the head of the main polling station. "As a result, there will be no need to transport the boxes from the auxiliary stations to the main ones," the judge said.
In an attempt to appease the judges, the Interior Ministry said in a statement earlier this week that full judicial control over the elections is a certainty. To add to the confusion, the ministry said that the judge heading the auxiliary station will be responsible for transporting the ballot boxes, in the company of the chief of security, to the vote-counting stations.
But Counsellor El-Rifaie remained opposed to the idea of judges receiving instructions from the Interior or Justice ministries. El-Rifaie cautioned that the ballot boxes to be used in this year's elections are the same ones used in past elections. There are fears that these boxes, being in the bad shape that they are, would be delivered to the vote-counting committees without being properly sealed. El-Rifaie disclosed that "instructions were issued by the Justice Ministry that judges who refuse to abide by the ministry's instructions should be excluded from supervising the elections."
This has led many judges to question the role of the Justice Ministry in the election process. A line of distinction, they urged, should be drawn between the judiciary and the Justice Ministry, which is part of the executive authority. Counsellor Shalash, as well as others, suggested that the appointment of the heads of both the auxiliary and main stations should be the sole responsibility of the Supreme Judicial Council. At present, the council only has the right to make nominations, with the final say resting with the Justice Ministry.
The Justice Ministry's decision to appoint staff from the State Lawsuits Authority to the chairmanship of the auxiliary and main polling stations is, according to Shalash, a clear breach of the constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Constitutional Court. He argued that members of the authority are state attorneys who will only defend the interests of the government. "These are not judges; they are Justice Ministry staff. The same is true of members of the administrative prosecution," El-Rifaie said.
Officials of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) believe the issue is being blown out of proportion. A high-ranking NDP source told the Weekly that "the judges' concerns are exaggerated. Every ballot box is to be sealed and the responsible judge will write a report on the number of votes inside each box; therefore, fears of vote-rigging or replacing boxes are groundless," Mohamed Moussa, head of the Legislative Committee of the outgoing People's Assembly, said. Moussa believes that the idea of judges accompanying the ballot boxes to the vote-counting committees is "impractical."
Related stories:
In the judges' court 17 - 23 August 2000
Making history at the Supreme Court 13 - 19 July 2000
The judges are coming 13 - 19 July 2000
Tempered jubilation 13 - 19 July 2000
