The House of Representatives begins discussing the controversial Egyptian-Saudi Red Sea maritime demarcation agreement next week amid deep divisions among MPs. The deal between Egypt and Saudi Arabia was signed on 8 April during King Salman Abdul-Aziz's visit to Cairo. Parliament Speaker Ali Abdel-Aal issued a statement on Monday announcing that the deal had been referred to parliament for discussion and voting the previous day. “I want to ensure parliament has sufficient time to discuss the deal from different angles and also to hear the opinions of experts in international law,” said Abdel-Aal. “MPs should approach the deal with open hearts and minds and discussions should be conducted in an atmosphere of complete transparency. The public needs to be informed of every step we take on this deal.” A number of MPs told reporters this week that four parliamentary committees will be tasked with discussing and preparing a report on the deal. MP Mustafa Bakri told reporters on Sunday that he expects the deal to be discussed by the Legislative and Constitutional Affairs, Defence and National Security, Foreign Affairs and Arab Affairs committees. Bahaeddin Abu Shoka, head of the Legislative and Constitutional Affairs Committee and secretary-general of the Wafd party, said on Monday that “the committee will have no time limit placed on its discussion of the deal”. “All documents relevant to the agreement will be thoroughly reviewed and the committee will respect the constitution when it comes to making its decision,” said Abu Shoka. The government's decision to refer the demarcation deal to parliament has left MPs divided into two camps. This, says Bakri, comes as no surprise. He told Al-Ahram Weekly “that no sooner had this deal been made public than independent lawyers and the deal's political opponents decided to challenge it in the courts”. “After eight months the courts themselves remain divided with some ruling the deal should be nullified while others insist that it is parliament's prerogative to have the final say on treaties dealing with issues of sovereignty.” Since April, government officials have been arguing that the Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir which under the deal will be ceded to Saudi Arabia were never Egyptian sovereign territory but had only been administered by Egypt since the 1950s at Saudi Arabia's request. Opponents of the deal, including leading lawyers Khaled Ali and Malek Adli, opted to challenge the government's argument in the courts. Ali has denounced the government's decision to refer the deal to parliament while it is still being deliberated on by the courts as unconstitutional. Abu Shoka, however, insists that article 151 of the constitution gives parliament the final say on all sovereign agreements. “Anyone who disagrees with this interpretation can contest it before the Supreme Constitutional Court,” says Abu Shoka. He expects “the parliamentary debate on the deal will take at least a month”. “During this period the Higher Administrative Court is expected to issue a final verdict on the status of the deal, well before parliament is ready to vote on it.” The court is scheduled to deliver its verdict on 16 January. “As far as I know a number of high-profile international law experts, including former minister and international law expert Moufid Shehab, will be invited to air their opinions of the deal,” says Bakri. “A fact-finding committee could also be formed to investigate different aspects of the treaty.” Bakri believes parliamentary sessions debating the deal should be broadcast live. He told the Weekly he is convinced the islands fall within Saudi territory. “Though I have seen many documents which support my opinion, I remain willing to listen to anyone who has documentation that shows this is not the case,” said Bakri. Independent MP Mohamed Abu Hamed told the Weekly that officials from the Foreign Ministry, army and General Intelligence are likely to be invited to parliament to give their views on the Egyptian-Saudi agreement. “President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi has already said the government approved the deal only after officials in these institutions concluded that the two islands are Saudi territory,” says Abu Hamed. Abu Hamed added that all the international documents he has consulted “agree that the islands of Tiran and Sanafir are Saudi Arabia's”. “Even so I am not sure yet how I will vote. My decision will be based on whether, during the parliamentary debates internationally recognised documents can be produced which state unequivocally that the islands belong to Egypt.” Abu Shoka told reporters that “in discussing the deal the Legislative and Constitutional Affairs Committee will ensure that no part of the treaty impacts negatively on Egypt's sovereignty or leads to the ceding of any part of Egyptian territory”. Parliamentary opponents of the deal, the majority of them left-leaning MPs, say they were surprised by the government's decision to refer the deal to parliament. The 25-30 parliamentary bloc issued a statement in denouncing the “cabinet's decision [to refer the deal to parliament] so late after it was signed and before the courts have issued a final verdict on it”. “The cabinet should now wait until a final verdict on the Egyptian-Saudi deal is issued by the Supreme Administrative Court,” argued the statement. “It would be both logical and constitutional for the government to refrain from referring international agreements to parliament as long as they are being deliberated by the judiciary,” the statement continued. The second paragraph of Article 151 of the constitution states that treaties covering reconciliations, alliances and sovereignty agreements should be put to a public referendum before being ratified. It rules out ratification for any agreement that cedes Egyptian territory. If a majority of two-thirds of MPs vote in favour of ceding the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia the next step should be to put the deal to a public referendum in line with Article 151 of the constitution, argue members of the 25-30 bloc. The bloc's statement also argued that it was up to Saudi Arabia to furnish all the documents needed to determine the two Red Sea islands fall within its territory. “What is surprising is that it is the Egyptian government which is doing its best to prove that the two Red Sea islands are Saudi. We believe this position places the government on a collision course with the Egyptian people,” reads the statement. On Saturday MP Samir Ghattas put out a statement arguing the cabinet's decision to refer the deal to parliament was unconstitutional. He implored the pro-government majority Support Egypt bloc not to rubber stamp the deal. “Egypt's parliaments have a glorious history of rejecting shameful agreements such as the extension of Great Britain's Suez Canal Company's concession in 1910. In 1951 parliament revoked the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936. Parliament has always stood against ceding any part of Egypt's land or sovereignty. The current parliament should follow this tradition,” Ghattas said. Osama Heikal, head of the Media Committee, told reporters on Tuesday that “parliament will take a vote on the deal only after the Supreme Administrative Court delivers a final verdict”. “We are not in any hurry. Parliament will exercise its duty only after the judiciary gives a say on the deal,” said Heikal. Mohamed Al-Sewedy, head of the Support Egypt bloc, said on Sunday that the Egyptian-Saudi deal was being reviewed by the bloc's experts. “Parliament is constitutionally authorised to discuss all aspects of this deal before putting it to a final vote,” said Al-Sewedy. “Historical documents are what will decide whether the two islands are ultimately Saudi.”
