EOHR logo

The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights
PRESS RELEASE



Amendment to the Constitutional Court Law




Wednesday 22 July 1998



The new amendment to the Constitutional Law constitutes an aggression on
legality, a breakdown of the rule of law and a disregard of the principle
of equality of all citizens

In unjustifiable haste and without previous presentation to the People's
Assembly, the genuine legislative body according to Article 86 of the
Constitution, the President of the Republic issued Decree no. 168 of 1998
amending paragraph three of Article 49 of the Supreme Constitutional Court
Law no. 48 of 1979. The new amendment states that: "Paragraph three of
Article 49 of the Constitutional Court Law shall be replaced by the
following provision: A ruling of unconstitutionality of a provision of a
law or a regulation shall entail the non-applicability of this law or
provision as of the date following the publication of the ruling, unless
another date is specified by the ruling. However, if a ruling of
unconstitutionality is made on a tax provision, it shall be implemented
only as of the day following its publication, without prejudice to the
benefit that a claimant may get from such provision being ruled
unconstitutional."

After deep legal study of the new amendment, the EOHR concludes that this
amendment comes in the context of a governmental campaign aimed to
undermine the supervisory role of the Supreme Constitutional Court to
examine the legitimacy of laws and regulations, and to continue its policy
of tightening its control on all state's institutions.  Moreover, the new
amendment breaches the Egyptian Constitution in form and content, and if
implemented, it will actually undermine the rule of law in Egypt. The
following are the main EOHR comments on the new amendment.

First:
The amendment reveals straightforwardly that the government is gravely
worried and annoyed by the high number of verdicts of unconstitutionality
made by the Supreme Constitutional Court.  Since its establishment in 1979,
the Court declared 121 legal provisions unconstitutional. These provisions
comprise 476 infractions of the Constitution. Since 1981, fifty of them
were announced unconstitutional by the Court, 32 of which in 1996 and 1997
alone. The Constitutional Court even declared whole laws unconstitutional,
which in some instances entailed a change in the financial gains resulted
form the implementation of these laws, in addition to compelling the state
to reimburse the money obtained through such laws, as has been the case
with the law imposing a tax on the Egyptian workers abroad.

The EOHR is surprised about the way the government has responded to the
vedicts of unconstitutionality of a large number of laws issued by the
Constitutional Court. Instead of analyzing the reasons that render the laws
issued by the legislative body unconstitutional and amending them, the
government has launched an organized campaign against the Supreme
Constitutional Court, a campaign that has been joined by some high state
officials.  And after a failed attempt to present a draft to undermine the
whole role of the court, now comes this amendment aimed at ensuring that
the government will not have to pay back the funds it obtained from
imposing unconstitutional taxes on Egyptians abroad.

The EOHR believes that the high number of unconstitutionality verdicts is
mainly due to the prevailing political nature of the legislative process,
the negligence of the legislative body, and its failure to ensure that all
new laws are in conformity with the Constitution.  This is particularly
true given the hastiness by which the making of laws is characterized in
the last period.

The EOHR believes that the only possible way to deal with the phenomenon of
'legislative deviation' is by referring to the genuine rules and not by
resorting to exceptional laws that, by their very nature, contradict the
Constitution. The first step that has to be followed in this regard is to
assign the drafting of laws only to experts, and to ensure their compliance
with the Constitution.

In this regard, article 63 of the State Council Law states that before a
new law is issued by any governmental body, the draft law must be presented
to the legislative department of the State Council for revision and
drafting, or jurists must be assigned in the said department to draft it in
order to ensure that the law will be clear, accurate and in accordance with
the constitution.

The EOHR affirms that the only democratic way to combat the phenomenon of
'legislative deviation' is to reinforce the power of the Supreme
Constitutional Court, not to undermine it. All the provisions and
principles of the Constitution, regardless of their value, remain
theoretical slogans unless an independent body with binding powers becomes
responsible for their protection and for securing commitment to them. It
may be appropriate here to quote the second Khalifa Omar Ibn Al-Khattab in
his famous letter to those he appointed to the judicial affairs: "It is
useless to speak about a right that is unenforceable." This is the same
belief that led many modern systems to state the right of the judiciary to
supervise the constitutionality of laws after practical experience proved
over the centuries, and as stated by the Egyptian administrative court on
30 July 1952,  that judicial supervision is "The only effective supervision
that would guarantee people's natural  rights and general freedoms, and
keep the regime within its legitimate constitutional limits." 

Based on this premises, the EOHR affirms that the new amendment devoids of
any real meaning the supervisory role undertaken by the Supreme Court, as
well as being an attack on the judiciary. The established rule in
international judiciary is that 'invalid legal rules are invalid as of the
time of their birth.' Given that the rulings of the Constitutional Court
are "disclosing", and that its jurisdiction is confined to examine the
constitutionality of legal texts as of the time of their issuance,  the
Court does not deal with the reasons or motives that might have led the
legislature to issue them. No doubt, sound legal logic and the
considerations of the effectiveness of constitutional supervision impose
that a verdict of unconstitutionality of a legal provision or regulation
must be enforceable as of its issuance, not as of the time of the ruling
announcing its unconstitutionality. The new amendment, in addition,
contains a flagrant contradiction by making the challenged law
constitutional in the stage prior to the verdict, and unconstitutional
after the ruling. This contradiction runs counter to the spirit of justice
that must characterize the legislative process.

Second:
Article 147 of the Egyptian Constitution states that: "In case it becomes
necessary during the recess between the sessions of the People's Assembly 
to take measures which cannot suffer delay, the President of the Republic
shall issue decisions which shall have the force of law."  But, the
explanatory memorandum of the new amendment states that: "Given that a
large number of suits presented to the Constitutional Court now are
challenges to tax provisions, and that some of these suits would result in
grave consequences in such a way that the Court would limit their
retrospective effect; and given that the Court holds it sessions in the
summer months, and that the People's Assembly will start its ordinary term
in November, it was necessary to issue this amendment as a decree, and in
accordance with article 147, since it is a measure that cannot be
postponed." 

The EOHR believes that the reasons given in the explanatory memorandum as a
justification for the use by the President of the Republic of his
exceptional powers on the basis of article 147 of the Constitution are not
convincing. The amendment could have been presented to the People's
Assembly before the end  of its last term, or, rather, the members of the
Assembly could have been invited to an urgent session to discuss this law
or to wait until next term, in November. All of these were legitimate
options that would have respected the provisions of the Constitution. There
was no urgent need to encroach on the powers of the People's Assembly. The
EOHR believes that the haste with which the amendment was issued was mainly
meant to guarantee that the government will be able to evade the
consequences of contravening the Constitution and imposing an illegal tax.

Third:
The new amendment contravenes gravely  the principle of the separation of
powers. Further, it makes the judges of the Constitutional Court undertake
legislative responsibilities, a function that is not for the Court and
constitutes a gross intrusion in the jurisdiction of the parliament.
Article 178 of the Constitution states that: " The law shall organize the
effects subsequent to a decision concerning the unconstitutionality of a
legislative text."  This means that deciding the direct or retrospective
impact of a verdict of unconstitutionality of a law or a regulation must be
governed by the law issued by the authorized legislative power.  Contrary
to this, the new amendment gives the Constitutional Court the power to
decide about he retrospective effect of its rulings.  This will involve
this Court in legislative matters that are not within its jurisdiction,
which is to decide about the constitutionality of a legal provision without
examining whether it is appropriate, dangerous, or necessary, and without
examining the motives behind its issuance, or deciding the retrospective
consequences of the ruling.  The Constitutional Court judges but does not
legislate.  In addition, giving the Court this unconstitutional power would
open the door for the executive to interfere into the Constitutional Court.

Fourth:
The new law disregards the principle of equality between citizens stated in
Article 40 of the Egyptian Constitution.  It implies an unjustifiable
discrimination in the rulings with respect to whether they will have
immediate or retrospective impact.

On the one hand, the law does not provide equal treatment to people who
obtain rulings on the unconstitutionality of a tax provision.  In some
cases, the Court may state that the ruling has an immediate impact, while
in others  it may affirm that the unconstitutionality of the challenged
provision begins from the day of its issuance, i.e. retrospectively. 
Similarly, the Court can have the same power with respect to provisions
other than those related to taxes. 

Fifth:
The provision stating that a ruling of unconstitutionality on a tax
provision will not have retrospective effects contravenes the Constitution,
which stresses that citizens must regain the money taken from them upon an
unconstitutional law or in an illegal way.  Finally, Article 57 of the
Constitution  states that: "Any assault on individual freedom or on the
inviolability of the private life of citizens and any other public rights
and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the law shall be
considered a crime whose criminal and civil lawsuit is not liable to
prescription.  The state shall grant a fair compensation to the victim of
such an assault."


Other EOHR Press Releases
EOHR || Human Rights in Egypt


Derechos HR
This document is published online by Derechos Human Rights. Derechos works against violations to human rights and humanitarian law all over the world.