Hundreds of judges spent 2005 locked in a battle for their independence. Mona El-Nahhas reviews the case What has been described as the judges' intifada, or uprising, began in April when Alexandria Judges Club chairman Mahmoud El-Khodeiri warned that judges would not supervise this year's presidential and parliamentary elections if the government did not meet their demands. The judges thus placed themselves at the forefront of activists pushing for reform. Professional syndicates and human rights organisations hailed them, urging the men in black robes to continue their protest until they got what they wanted: the endorsement of a draft amendment of the judiciary authority law; and full control over the supervision of elections. Judges complain that the current judiciary law curbs their authority and undermines their independence. Under the law, judges are subject to the authority of the justice minister, who represents the executive authority. In 1991, in an attempt to become independent of the state's direct control, Cairo Judges Club members proposed an alternative draft recommending that the Supreme Judiciary Council, rather than the justice minister, be in charge of judges' budgetary and financial affairs. The draft said members of the Supreme Council should be elected by the general assemblies of both the Appeals and Cassation Courts to guarantee the council's neutrality, and act as a true representation of judges' will. The draft was shelved for more than 10 years. It was only last May that it received the approval of the justice minister, who referred it to the Supreme Judiciary Council for endorsement before being submitted to the People's Assembly. Since then, however, the council has been procrastinating. "As an appointed council, its members would never approve of a draft which called for electing council members," said Ahmed Mekki, deputy chief justice of the Cassation Court, who warned the judiciary council against introducing changes to the original draft. "Judges will not accept a distorted draft," he said. On the parliamentary elections, judges argued they should be the sole supervisor to avoid a repeat of the electoral fraud that marred pervious parliamentary polls, when judges' supervision was only partial. In the 2000 parliamentary elections, judges were only posted at the major polling stations, which constitute just five per cent of the total. Government employees monitored auxiliary stations, and the Interior Ministry had overall responsibility. Multiple voting by supporters of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), and voting in the name of the dead, were the most common violations marring past elections. By May, the Cairo Judges Club joined the Alexandria club in demanding full supervision with no Interior Ministry interference. The judges' request, however, was not approved by the judiciary council, which instead declared that judges would supervise elections without setting any conditions. The statement named the judiciary council as the only body responsible for defending judges' rights. It also called the May judges' club general assembly illegal, describing the attendees as "a minority going against the law". Believing it was threatened, the government tried to drive a wedge between judges. The Justice Ministry, for example, promised to pay judges willing to monitor the elections bonuses rumoured to be as high as LE10,000 a day. The governmental attempts succeeded to some extent. While judges insisted they would not abandon their demands to supervise elections, they reluctantly agreed to monitor the May referendum -- that asked the public whether it wanted the usual presidential referendum or a multi-party candidate election -- arguing the plebiscite differed from the elections. The possibilities of rigging its results, they claimed, would be small in the absence of competing candidates. In the end, there were violations and irregularities on referendum day, and judges, whose supervision was limited to major poll stations, consequently submitted a report entitled Egypt's Conscience, in which they accused the state and the police of forging results and turnout figures. Fearing the same scenario would be repeated on presidential election day, judges were even more adamant about their demands. After tough negotiations with the Presidential Electoral Commission (PEC) -- established this year to regulate presidential polls -- judges managed to get some of the electoral guarantees they were pressing for. While not fully satisfied, they nevertheless saw the gains as an encouraging start. For the first time, judges were offered greater control over auxiliary stations after the number of such stations was reduced from 54,000 to 9,737. They were empowered to shut down stations in which violations were discovered. Phosphoric ink was used as a safeguard against multiple voting. Following nearly three months in which threats of a boycott loomed, judges decided in September to supervise the polls. They vowed to expose rigging, if there was any, before the Egyptian public and the world. The judges' position would change 180 degrees following the presidential elections. After the poll, the Cairo Judges Club sent a congratulatory telegram to President Mubarak hailing "the positive electoral process". In fact, the telegram angered those judges who were appalled at the number of violations committed on election day. At some polling stations, supervisors instructed voters to vote for President Mubarak and his crescent election symbol. The phosphoric ink, meant to prevent multiple voting, could be washed off, thus negating its effectiveness as a fraud prevention tool. The most flagrant violation was that voters whose names were not registered on electoral lists were allowed to cast their ballots without obtaining a pink voter registration card, a constitutional prerequisite for voting. Attempting to placate judges who supervised the presidential polls, the club issued a report assessing the presidential electoral experiment. The report was not decisive and did not reveal whether it was for or against the election. Searching for the reasons behind the their sudden change of heart, it was said that judges were promised that if they did not make a fuss during presidential polls, their long-awaited law would soon see the light. That was supposedly why they decided to calm things down. Judges who were battling over their supervisory rights ahead of the presidential polls, were relatively quiet in the run-up to the parliamentary elections. But going into the final stage of the three-stage parliamentary election procedure, judges realised that the promise they had received from the state was hollow. They therefore decided to expose the rigging that had occurred during the first two stages of the poll. The most courageous testimony came from a deputy chairwoman at the Administrative Authority named Noha El-Zeini, who revealed that results in the Damanhour constituency she supervised were rigged in NDP candidate Mustafa El-Fiqi's favour. El-Fiqi's rival, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Gamal Heshmat, was originally declared the winner. The State Council Judges Club absolved itself of the second stage run-off results. "Elections were a farce. Judges acted as extras," said Mahmoud Mekki, deputy chief justice of the Cassation Court. Judges who were attacked and insulted by NDP thugs while doing their job pressured their clubs to issue a decree boycotting the final stage of elections. The security apparatus, which did not interfere during presidential elections, was accused of allowing thugs to intimidate voters, block access to polling stations, attack judges and steal or even burn ballot boxes. Judges said they would request military protection for the polls after the police had "failed to fulfil their mission". The judges' outspoken criticism prompted angry reaction from the state-appointed members of the Supreme Judicial Council, which asked the prosecutor-general to begin investigating a group of judges who had been advocating judicial reform. The judges in question were accused of interfering in politics. "The state wants to silence us. Judges who reveal the truth will be prosecuted or fired," said Hesham Bastaweisi, deputy chief justice of the Cassation Court, in the wake of the judiciary council's decision. The government reacted to the outcry by taking a number of steps viewed as safeguards against electoral fraud and pledging that the third stage of elections would be fair. The optimism was short-lived; none of the safeguards were applied during the final stage of the elections, which witnessed the worst violations since the elections began. During a general assembly held two weeks ago, judges who were subject to assaults presented their testimonies, condemning "the thuggery of the regime", and calling for revenge. The general assembly also witnessed elections for the judges' club's council, which had been vocal in its call for fair elections and an independent judiciary. Members managed to keep their 15 seats. The outspoken chairman Zakareya Abdel-Aziz was re-elected for another three years. His rival, judge Adel El-Shorbagui, who was backed by the state, received just 930 out of 4,732 total votes. Abdel-Aziz and his group won, despite the smear campaign the state had launched against them ahead of the elections. The win by Abdel-Aziz and his group was viewed as a sweeping victory for pro-reforms, and a signal that the battle of the judges would probably continue in 2006 and beyond.
