Previous 12 / 22 Next

12 Official Gazette – Issue No. 8 bis (a) May 26, 2013 Twelfth: the end of paragraph 3 of article (33) stated that "If the sub-committee is allocated for women or joint, a member of the personnel should be a woman to help the committee's head in verifying the identity of the full-veiled women". So that such text complies with article (210) of the constitution, the presence of women in the membership of the Committee should be limited only to assist the Committee's president in verifying the identity of full-veiled women without possibility of carrying out such activity solely. Thirteenth: paragraph 5 of article (38) of the presented draft law stipulates that "the blind and other voters with disabilities who cannot record their opinions on the election or referendum ballot papers without assistance may express their choice verbally in a manner such that only the committee's members can hear. The secretary of the committee shall record the voter’s choice on his ballot paper, and the head shall sign it and mark next to the voter’s name on the voters' list that the voter expressed his opinion according to this procedure". Whereas the text as advanced violates the constitution's provisions stated in articles (113) and (128) thereof; since according to these two texts, the elections procedures shall be carried out via direct secret vote. Vote secrecy supposes that the voter's opinion should be viewed by the voter only and when necessary a member of the judicial entity or body who heads the polling committee may join him/her. Thus, what is stated in the presented text on the necessity that the committee's members should listen to the opinion of the disabled voter or that the committee's secretary proves such opinion in the ballot paper and the committee's head should sign the ballot paper represents a violation of the constitutional guarantee with respect to vote secrecy. Fourteenth: paragraph 1 of article (69) of the presented draft law stipulates that "This law shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall go into effect since the date of issuance". Whereas article (223) of the constitution stipulates that "Laws shall be published in the Official Gazette within 15 days from the date of issuance, to be effective 30 days from the day following the date of publication, unless the law has specified a different date.” Provisions of the laws shall apply only from the date of enforcement and shall have no retroactive effect. However, with the approval of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House of Representatives, provisions to the contrary may be made in articles pertaining to non-criminal and non-tax-related matters". Whereas such text indicates that the constitution stipulates that the laws should be published in the Official Gazette 15 days from the date of issuance, to be enforced – as a general principle – 30 days from the day following the date of publication, unless the laws specified another date for enforcement, which the day following the date of publication of the law is its minimum date; based upon the foregoing general principle; which signifies that any other date – as a minimum limit – specified by the laws for their enforcement should be the day following such date, this in case the legislator's will tends to enforce the law in the shortest time from date of publication.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Shura Council Speaker request for constitutional review of the draft law regulating the exercise of political rights.

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the draft law adheres to the current constitutional political protections.

Alleged Acts: The Shura Council Member filed suit in the Supreme Constitutional Court seeking review of the draft law that limited political rights and they exercise thereof. The drafted law; (1) distinguished between judicial bodies and branches and required the National Elections Commission to assign supervision of voting to judicial bodies; (2) permitted those unable to cast their ballot based on visual impairment or other disability to verbally state the vote to an election official who would record it on a ballot; (3) permitting the President to set the general election date by decree; (4) no modifications may be made to the voter database after the call for elections; (5) reforming the voting abroad system to begin counting before the actual date of elections.

Summary: The court determined that the differentiation between judicial bodies and branches was unconstitutional and required that they words be synonymous. Second, the court determined that all ballots must be direct secret votes, but that this supposes the voter is sighted. Thus, the court determined that the committee head signing the ballot paper violated the right to secrecy. Third, the court determined that Presidential decree violated the constitution because it diminish the integrity of election and removed powers from the Election Commission. Fourth, the court determined that restrictions on the right to voter were limited such those they unreasonably hindered political participation. Fifth, the court determine that the constitution provides protections for Egyptians living abroad and the restriction of voting before election day failed to adhere to these protections.

Conclusion: The court struck down portion of the drafted law and unconstitutional because they conflicted with the political protections set forth in the constitution.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Vote Verification and Transmission

Region: Middle East and North Africa

Country: Egypt

Language of Decision

English

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: May 26, 2013

Geolocation

Latitude: 30.38327401

Longitude: 31.34626495

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

SCC ruling- some elec procedures and PWDs-May 2013 (English).pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Shura Council Speaker request for constitutional review of the draft law regulating the exercise of political rights.

Primary Documents

Notifications