Previous 19 / 22 Next

Official Gazette – Issue No. 8 bis (a) May 26, 2013 19 A penalty of confinement to jail for a period of no less than three months and a fine of no less than five thousand pounds and no more than twenty thousand pounds or either penalty shall be inflicted on whoever violates the other rules referred heretofore". There are 4 remarks about this text: 1- Paragraph 1 of article (13) of the draft law in clause (2) thereof stipulated preserving national unity and refraining from using any slogan for electoral campaigning that leads to distinction based on religion, gender or origin, and whereas article (6) of the constitution builds the state's political system on the basis of citizenship which treats all citizens equally in the public rights and duties and in respect of human rights and freedoms; to preserve the national unity emphasized in article (5) of the constitution, and which is also protected by principles 5 and 7 of the constitution's preamble. Whereas using religious slogans in itself leads to religious distinction among citizens; since the followers of each religion will use the slogan that glorifies their religion which destroys the essence of citizenship principle and adds a new reason for spreading and deepening disunity and split among citizens. Whereas the organization of the electoral process shall not be possible unless it is reasonable; and this is achieved only when it is neutral in its content. Whereas the presented text omits banning the use of religious or doctrinal slogans or symbols in themselves, it undermines national unity, contrasts the concept of citizenship, infringes the citizen's right to election, candidacy and political rights exercise and hinders voters from determining his/her opinion of candidates and comparing among them with respect to their platforms. It also infringes the principles of equal opportunities and equity among candidates themselves; which makes such text contradictory to articles (5, 6, 9, 33 and 55) of the constitution. 2- The second paragraph of article (13) of the draft law vested HEC with determining the maximum campaign expenditure limit that may not be exceeded. Whereas article (228) of the constitution tasked HEC with full supervision of the first legislative elections following the enforcement of the constitution, without HEC's entitlement to determining a maximum campaign expenditure limit, violating this maximum limit is criminally punished in accordance with the last paragraph of article (13) of the draft law. Whereas article (76) of the constitution stipulates that the penalty shall be personal, and since there shall be neither crime nor penalty unless according to a constitutional or legal text, indicating that the determination of the stated maximum limit must be included in the framework of the legislator's power solely, the text shall be contrary to the constitution from this view, as well as violating article (55) of the constitution considering that the electoral campaigning is a method to introduce candidates and their platforms to voters, which is closely related to the rights of election and candidacy. This requires electoral campaigning to be regulated by a law according to what is stipulated by this constitutional text. Accordingly, paragraph 2 of such article, concerning HEC's determination of the stated maximum limit, violates articles (55), (76) and (228) of the constitution. 3- Also, paragraph 2 of the aforementioned article (13) tasked HEC with setting the rules on the means and methods regulating electoral campaigning. Whereas the decrees issued by HEC in this regard are mere executive regulations according to

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