A dispute between parliament and the Supreme Constitutional Court has infuriated judges, Mona El-Nahhas reports Anger has swept judicial circles in the wake of a new draft law which will reportedly marginalise the role of the Supreme Constitutional Court in controlling legislation passed by parliament. The draft, which was submitted by two parliamentary members representing the Salafist Nour Party, received preliminary approval from the parliament's proposals committee on 15 May. Following the announcement of the draft, the 19 judges in the Supreme Constitutional Court held an emergency general assembly rejecting the legislation, which they described as an insult to the court. For three successive days, the assembly met. A delegate from the constitutional court of judges told members of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) of the "ferocious aggression" to which the court was subjected to. Judges of the Supreme Constitutional Court were not the only ones to take action. The National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) condemned the proposed draft law, viewing it as a "stigma which can never be erased." In a statement issued on 16 May, the NCHR described the Supreme Constitutional Court as a "safety valve", stressing that for decades the constitutional court managed to safeguard the constitution via its "landmark and outstanding rulings". During a meeting held late last week, the Advisory Council called on the SCAF to intervene and safeguard the Supreme Constitutional Court, considered a bastion of justice in Egypt. It stressed that the draft serves nothing but individual interests. Under the 2011 constitutional declaration, the SCAF has the right to oppose certain legislation and to stop their endorsement. Twenty-four NGOs issued a joint statement in which they condemned the draft which will restructure the Supreme Constitutional Court and introduce amendments. The statement said the bill "constituted a threat to the principle of the supremacy of law". If the draft becomes law, the NGOs warned that it would deprive the judiciary of its independence by allowing the legislative authority to "unacceptably interfere in its work". The statement called for granting the Supreme Constitutional Court more guarantees that would back its independence and keep it above any ongoing political battles. Attempting to calm down the escalating situation, MP Hussein Ibrahim who represents the Freedom and Justice Party, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, insisted in press statements that his party was not in favour of making any amendments to the Supreme Constitutional Court law, at least for now. Talaat Marzouq, head of the parliament's proposals committee, noted that the draft law is still in its first steps, adding that it had not yet reached the legislative committee to be discussed. Parliament decided to adjourn its session until 26 May. Until then the draft law and official deliberations on it are on hold. According to constitutional expert Atef El-Banna, parliament has the right to draft legislation that would regulate the work of all state bodies, including the Supreme Constitutional Court, on condition that such legislation does not violate articles of the constitution. The constitutional court as an independent body authorised with controlling legislation is clearly cited in the 1971 constitution and in the 2011 constitutional declaration. "So any attempt to marginalise such abilities would cause the legislation to be considered unconstitutional," El-Banna said, expecting the draft to be shelved. The controversial draft law strips the Supreme Constitutional Court of the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws which are endorsed after securing the approval of three-quarters of members of parliament. Rulings issued by the Supreme Constitutional Court ordering a dissolution of either the parliament or the Shura Council are not obligatory for parliament under the proposed draft. In such a situation, the implementation of the ruling, the draft law said, would be suspended until the end of the six-year parliamentary session. This means, as legal experts argued, that rulings of the Supreme Constitutional Court will, for the first time in its history, have no bearing. Under former president Hosni Mubarak, two rulings were issued by the Supreme Constitutional Court ordering dissolution of the parliament. "The rulings were implemented very smoothly and nobody objected or thought of undermining the constitutional court, as is happening now," legal expert and former deputy prime minister Yehia El-Gamal said in an opinion piece published in a local daily on 21 May. Legal experts viewed the draft law as an attempt to pressure the Supreme Constitutional Court from passing a ruling that may lead to dissolving the current parliament. The law, which recently regulated elections of both the parliament and the Shura Council, was referred to the Supreme Constitutional Court in February to rule whether it conforms to the constitution. A ruling of the constitutional court is due within one month. In a statement the Arab Programme for Human Rights Activists expressed its rejection of the constitutional court being pressured. "Attacking the court through such legislation is the beginning of placing the judiciary under siege and depriving it of its independence to the advantage of the legislative authority. This is totally unacceptable," the statement said.
