Previous 5 / 22 Next

Official Gazette – Issue No. 8 bis (a) May 26, 2013 5 Whereas this court, in reviewing the draft law hereof, asserts that the pre-control procedures thereof are limited to comparing the draft law with the Constitution to determine whether or not it conforms to provisions thereof. Hence, the following are excluded from the scope of the said control: 1. Reviewing the legal wording of the draft law. 2. Examining whether the provisions of the draft law are contradictory or contradict other legal texts, unless such contradiction is not deemed as a constitutional violation. 3. Determining the conformity of some of the provisions included in the draft law, since such matter falls within the legislator estimated authority. Having reviewed the present draft law, the Court hereby concludes the following: First: Articles (168) through (180) stated in Section (3), Chapter (3), of the current Constitution adopted a new ideology that differentiates between "judicial branches" and "judicial bodies". The first refers to each entity enjoying judicial power including ordinary courts such as Public Prosecution, State Council courts, and Supreme Constitutional Court as stated in articles (172) through (175); while the judicial body refers to the State Affairs Body and the Administrative Prosecution as stated in articles (179) and (180). Also, Section (4), Chapter (4), of the Constitution assigned articles from (208) to (211) for the National Elections Commission (NEC). Paragraph (2) of article (210) stipulates: "The Commission assigns the supervision of voting and counting to members of the judiciary and of judicial bodies. This mandate lasts at least ten years from the Constitution’s entry into force. Also, article (228) of the Constitution stipulates "The High Election Commission in existence at the time this Constitution enters into effect is responsible for full supervision of the first legislative elections …". This means that supervision of voting and counting processes shall be supervised by members of judicial branches and bodies. Based on the above, article (5), paragraph (1) of article (6), paragraph (2) of article (7), article (9), paragraph (1) of article (13), and article (33) of the presented draft law indicate that such draft law violates the constitutional requirement differentiating between "judicial branches" and "judicial bodies". Thus, to address such violation, wherever the terms "of branches", "branches", and "branch" appear in article (5), paragraph (1) of article (6), and paragraph (2) of article (7), they shall be replaced by "of bodies", "bodies", and "body", respectively. Moreover, the same violation shall be addressed in article (9) as well as paragraph (1) of articles (13) and (33) through replacing "judicial bodies" with "judicial branches or bodies" and "judicial body" with "Judicial branch or body", as appropriate. Second: article (1) of the draft law stipulates that "Every male and female Egyptian reaching eighteen years of age shall personally exercise the following political rights: First: Express opinion in all referenda prescribed in the Constitution. Second: Elect each of: 1. The President of the Republic; 2. Members of the House of Representatives;

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