ACIJLP publishes report outlining the law’s shortcomings
CAIRO: Members of the self-elected Judges Club have decided to stand firm in their protests against a recently amended draft of the judicial law, clinging hard to their independence, as parliament decided to pass the final draft of the law despite the club’s reservations and recently voiced objections to some articles.
The Judges Club planned to hold a meeting of their General Assembly to discuss what some members of the press have called a “provocative law, while the independent Arab Center for Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession (ACIJLP) published a report outlining the new law’s shortcomings and emphasizing the impact a law stifling judicial authority could have on the community.
“This law is especially important because it organizes the work of judges who are in charge of taking the final decision concerning the lives, freedoms, rights, duties and property of citizens, read the report. “As a result, there is a need for the judiciary authority to have complete power over all issues of a judiciary nature.
The law has some positive aspects, explained ACIJLP, a notion voiced even by some of the protesting judges. It does have, however, other aspects that are incompatible with international criteria relevant to the independence of the judiciary authority, “particularly principles concerning the independence of the judiciary authority approved through the United Nations General Assembly decisions.
According to the report, the final draft does not include objective criteria for the selection and appointment of the judiciary despite “the failure of authorities in charge of appointment to adhere to the criteria of fairness and transparency to the point [that] litigations [were raised] before the state council demanding the cancellation of many appointments and the subsequent exclusion of many efficient judges. In addition, the final draft does not include text that discourages depriving women of certain public positions and thus it does not guarantee their constitutional rights, neither does it include statements preventing the possible occurrence of discrimination toward candidates for judicial authority on the basis of gender, color, religion or political inclinations and opinions.
The new law, continues the report, also does not mention the right of judges to freely establish or form associations or other organizations that can represent their interests, organize their professional training and defend their judiciary independence – neither does it give the judges the freedom of affiliating with such organizations, even though it is an “enforced right in democratic systems.
In a recent interview with The Daily Star Egypt, deputy of the cassation court and outspoken judge Mahmoud Mekki, one of two judges who blew the whistle on vote rigging during last year’s presidential elections, added that an entity like “the Judges Club should also remain under the sole control of its own self-elected general assembly, answering to no other entity. [However] the new law does not secure this, and in turn suggests that interference and meddling in the club’s internal affairs could possibly occur.
The draft law retains the Justice Ministry’s and the Supreme Judicial Council’s authorities over judicial inspection, and the recruitment, promotion and supervision of judges. This notion that the Judges Club rejected, calling for its amendment. The law clearly maintains the government’s authority in appointing the general prosecutor and the chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council almost unconditionally, undermining judicial independence and attaching judicial authority to the executive authority.
It does “not provide clear articles or text to address the position of public prosecution and its separation from the executive authority, commented the report. “The law [does] not point out any objective criteria in the selection of the prosecutor general [although] public prosecution continues to combine the authorities of issuing charges and investigation when public prosecution should, as is the case in democratic systems, be in charge of accusation as long as it is affiliated to the executive authority in which case it should leave investigation to the judiciary authority.
The law also allows heads of courts to assign specific judges to certain cases, a rule that violates citizens’ rights and breaches article 14 of the UN’s basic principles concerning the independence of the judiciary.
The parliament-proposed rule does not allow judges to be nominated for the general assemblies of the Court of Cassation and the Cairo Court of Appeals to form the Supreme Judiciary Council and considers seniority the sole basis for forming the council; another aspect that the Judges Club rejects.
Finally, ACIJLP said that passing such a law should have been first and foremost guided by the judges’ opinion, especially since the law manages their profession, “the provisions of which they are the most capable [because of] practice, real life experience [and their understanding of] the minute details that support or disturb their independence.
