Legal complications concerning the Press Syndicate elections appear to be far from over. Shaden Shehab reports On Tuesday, journalists were eagerly awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court which they hoped would end the convoluted legal rangling that has plagued the upcoming Press Syndicate elections. Once the ruling was announced late in the day, however, many journalists continued to wonder whether the it actually did much to resolve the crisis. Many journalists were relieved that the court scrapped last week's Administrative Court ruling which barred current Syndicate Chairman Ibrahim Nafie, Al-Ahram's chairman of the board and editor-in-chief, from renominating himself as chairman. The higher court explained that the Administrative Court was not delegated to rule on this point, since the plaintiff in the case -- journalist Amer Eid of Al-Shaab newspaper, mouthpiece of the frozen Labour Party -- had not actually asked for a ban on Nafie's bid for the chairman's post. "The [administrative] court produced a ruling on a matter that was not requested of it," the Supreme Administrative Court said. In fact, Eid had surprised the Supreme Administrative Court -- and most journalists -- when he informed the court that he had not filed his lawsuit to prevent Nafie from running, and was actually "astonished" that the court had ruled on that issue in the first place. Nafie, who has been chairman since 1999, can now nominate himself again -- even though Press Syndicate Law 76 of 1976 stipulates that the chairman is elected every two years for a maximum of two consecutive terms. The legal reasoning behind Nafie's renomination stemmed from the judicial committee for professional syndicates' 1 June decision to nullify both the 1999 and 2001 syndicate elections, hence opening the door for the chairman to renominate himself. The series of events that led to this decision formed an integral part of the impetus for the Press Syndicate's appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court in the first place. Basically, several people had won a number of Administrative Court rulings over the past few years allowing them to join the syndicate. The sticky point, however, in Tuesday's ruling, is that journalists had hoped the court would have also quashed the Administrative Court's ruling concerning these would-be syndicate members, who, according to Press Syndicate law, did not possess the appropriate qualifications to join the syndicate. The Supreme Administrative Court, however, refused to accept the syndicate's appeal on this matter. The Administrative Court had ruled that the judicial committee's decision to hold elections on 25 June (a decision the syndicate council had accepted because its council and chairman's terms in office were set to end) be halted because the rulings were only used by the syndicate as a cover to hold new elections, without actually implementing the complete ruling -- which allowed these unqualified members to join. It also ordered that nominations be rescheduled, and that every stage of the elections be conducted under complete judicial supervision. The crux of the matter was that even as the syndicate decided to implement the part of the ruling nullifying the 1999 and 2001 elections, it refused to implement the part allowing the would-be members to join. On 17 June, in accordance with the Administrative Court ruling two days earlier, Hanaa El-Mansi, chairman of the judicial committee, announced that elections would be postponed until the Press Syndicate's membership lists were revised. El-Mansi specified that before 15 July, the judicial committee would make certain that the list includes the people who had attained court rulings allowing them to become members. He also said a new date for the elections would be announced as soon as that task is completed. Clearly, a large portion of the syndicate's membership was not pleased with this state of affairs. On 19 June, more than a thousand journalists gathered at their headquarters to announce their refusal to include those people who do not meet the Press Syndicate law's requirements for membership. The Press Syndicate council said that although it respects judicial rulings, it could not accept meddling in its affairs. The long and short of the matter was that most journalists want the elections to take place, and for Nafie to remain chairman, but do not want the Press Syndicate law to be marginalised in this way. How this complex equation will be solved remains anyone's guess.
