Cairo Court for Urgent Matters ruled on 2 April that parliament, and not the courts, is constitutionally tasked with reviewing border demarcation agreements. The judgement was in response to a petition filed by lawyer Ashraf Farahat. Sunday's ruling concluded that the High Administrative Court, which ordered in January that the two islands of Tiran and Sanafir belong to Egypt, had no jurisdiction over the matter. “The High Administrative Court's verdict in January should be nullified. It is parliament which is constitutionally authorised to discuss and review such foreign deals,” said the Court for Urgent Matters. The governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia signed a maritime border demarcation deal during Saudi King Salman bin Abdel-Aziz's visit to Cairo on 8 April 2016. It stated that the two Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir lie within Saudi maritime waters. The deal has faced a number of legal challenges since it was made public in April 2016. On 16 January 2017 the High Administrative Court (HAC) ruled that the agreement be annulled. HAC said “Egypt's sovereignty over Tiran and Sanafir is absolute,” and found that “the government of Egypt has failed to provide any documents supporting its contention the islands were only being temporarily administered by Egypt.” “The Egyptian army has been operative on the two islands since the beginning of the 20th century and it has never been an occupation force,” concluded HAC. Following the HAC ruling Parliament Speaker Ali Abdel-Aal said parliament would have the final say on the Red Sea deal with Riyadh. “It is up to parliament to decide whether the deal is constitutional,” he said. Despite the HAC case being heard the government went ahead and referred the deal to MPs on 2 January. In March Abdel-Aal said parliament would discuss the deal even after the HAC had ruled against it. The conflicting rulings by the HAC in January and last week's judgement by the Cairo Court for Urgent Matters have divided MPs. MP Mustafa Bakri told reporters he is in favour of referring the deal to the Supreme Constitutional Court. “Since two courts have issued different rulings in the same case we should resort to the Supreme Constitutional Court [SCC] to settle the dispute,” said Bakri. “The SCC should determine whether border demarcation agreements fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts or whether that prerogative is parliament's.” In its ruling the HAC said Article 190 of the 2014 constitution is clear in that it grants the State Council (the administrative courts) the right to review decisions and orders issued by the executive authority. “Administrative courts have this right, especially when the matter involves Egypt ceding part of its territory,” said the HAC. In contrast, Cairo Court for Urgent Matters argued Article 151 of the constitution allows the president of the republic to represent the state in all deals and agreements with foreign governments. It is up to the president to then ratify such deals after they have been approved by the House of Representatives. Bakri says parliament is unlikely to use the latest ruling to open a discussion on the deal with Saudi Arabia. “The deal has not yet been referred to the Legislative and Constitutional Affairs Committee,” said Bakri. “I think Abdel-Aal will wait to see if the government will resort to the SCC to get a final and binding ruling on the dispute before making that referral.” MP Alaa Abdel-Moneim, a member of the pro-government Support Egypt parliamentary bloc, told Al-Ahram Weekly that the Court for Urgent Matters lacked the authority to challenge verdicts issued by the HAC, a higher judicial authority. “In principle, rulings issued by higher courts can't be overturned by lower courts,” said Abdel-Moneim. He added he opposed any parliamentary discussion of the deal before the SCC has a final say. Mohamed Abu Hamed, a member of the Legislative and Constitutional Affairs Committee, argued the Cairo Court judgement opens the way for parliament to discuss the deal. “This ruling supports parliament's right to have the final say. The House should hurry up and discuss the deal before it becomes entangled in another legal dispute.” Abu Hamed went on to question why so many commentators assume parliament will automatically approve the deal. “In addition to exercising its constitutional rights, parliament will approve or reject the deal only after all documents relating to the case have been thoroughly reviewed and leading experts have testified before the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee.” Lawyer Ashraf Farahat points out that “the ruling issued by the Cairo Court refrained from saying whether the islands of Tiran and Sanafir are Saudi or Egyptian.” “The ruling simply states that the administrative courts have no remit over cases involving sovereignty issues.” Salah Fawzi, University of Mansoura professor of constitutional law, argued that Article 175 of the criminal procedures law allows urgent matter courts to annul judicial rulings whatever the source. Since “parliament is now constitutionally authorised to discuss all aspects of the deal”, Fawzi believes it should “do so in parallel with the SCC”. Khaled Ali, the lawyer who launched the initial legal challenge to the deal with Saudi Arabia, said the Cairo Court for Urgent Matters ruling was no surprise. “The government needs legal cover to have the deal discussed by parliament and the Cairo court gave it this ruling. The simple fact is, however, that the Cairo court is a lower court and not authorised to overturn rulings issued by higher courts.”
