12:49PM
Judges' boycott
By 
Issandr El Amrani | Egypt
Issandr El Amrani | Egypt
Al Jazeera reports on the judges' decision to boycott the elections unless their independence is guaranteed and on their own detention while trying to cover the meeting:
If they get their way, it would remove one of the key obstacles to political interference in the judiciary: namely, that the minister of justice controls the budget for salaries, promotions and bonuses and that judges who don't tow the line are usually punished. In a sense, this seems to be as much as a union negotiating tactic as a call for greater independence. The other issue is how much of this will translate into individual judges actually carrying out the boycott if necessary. It's pretty clear that there are also plenty of regime-friendly judges (such as some judges who will be sitting on the electoral commission), so it'll be interesting how this plays out within the judge's association.
(This post was edited to remove a reverence to Fathi Naguib, former head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, who died in 2003. I confused him with someone else.)
Update: Read this for the whole story by someone who really knows what she's talking about.
Egyptian judges have taken a provisional decision to abstain from their task as election supervisors this year if the government fails to guarantee them full oversight of the process.
The tough position, taken by consensus on Friday at a four-hour meeting attended by about 3000 judges, adds to the pressure on the government and on President Hosni Mubarak, who is widely expected to seek a fifth six-year term in September.
Presidential elections in the absence of judges could violate the constitution, which requires judicial supervision.
The judges also tied their cooperation on elections to the government's response to their separate demand for a draft law on the judiciary that ensures independence from the executive.
If they get their way, it would remove one of the key obstacles to political interference in the judiciary: namely, that the minister of justice controls the budget for salaries, promotions and bonuses and that judges who don't tow the line are usually punished. In a sense, this seems to be as much as a union negotiating tactic as a call for greater independence. The other issue is how much of this will translate into individual judges actually carrying out the boycott if necessary. It's pretty clear that there are also plenty of regime-friendly judges (such as some judges who will be sitting on the electoral commission), so it'll be interesting how this plays out within the judge's association.
(This post was edited to remove a reverence to Fathi Naguib, former head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, who died in 2003. I confused him with someone else.)
Update: Read this for the whole story by someone who really knows what she's talking about.
Reader Comments (3)
FYI, Fathi Naguib passed away 2 years ago..
Most probably the regime will pursue divide and conquer tactics against the judges, but hopefully this will not work.
Most probably the regime will pursue divide and conquer tactics against the judges, but hopefully this will not work.
I'm actually pretty hopeful that divide and conquer tactics won't work. This isn't the first time the judges' association has taken a stand against the government - they've also protested the NGO law - and the lower courts in recent years have begun to show the same independence that the Court of Cassation has traditionally exercised. As far as I know, they haven't threatened concrete job action before, but the election will be a high enough profile event that any adverse action against them could be very embarrassing to the government. The election law pretty much makes the vote into a farce, but the government still wants it to look democratic to the outside world, and an attack on the judges could easily be seen as an attack on the democratic process and rule of law. I think the government will have to at least talk to the judges.
Granted, a decision in the judges' favor wouldn't affect the election all that much - the draft law will prevent any serious candidate from running, so judicial oversight by itself won't make a difference. On the other hand, if the judges can leverage their opposition into concessions on salaries, job tenure and freedom from executive regulation, that might lead to an improvement in overall judicial independence. That in turn could impact on issues well beyond the election.
BTW, Issandr, thanks for the Baheyya link - very informative indeed.
Judicial leverage
The indispensable people at the Arabist Network are, as always, doing an excellent job of covering the fallout from Hosni Mubarak's decision to introduce multi-party presidential elections in Egypt. The opening, which was never a large one to begin wi...