Continental Focus, International Reach

Politics: Egypt’s Arbitrary and Unfair Removal of Judges

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) called for the reversal of the Supreme Disciplinary Board’s decisions to force into retirement 47 judges following two separate, mass proceedings known as the “July 2013 Statement Case” and the “Judges for Egypt Case,” which concern over 60 judges.

The March 28 decision in the “July 2013 Statement Case” upheld the Disciplinary Board’s 2015 decision that declared a total of 32 judges “unfit” for judicial office, forcing them into retirement.

It comes after all of the 15 judges referred to disciplinary proceedings in the “Judges for Egypt” were forcibly removed from their offices on March 21. In a third case on March 7, 2016, the Disciplinary Board removed from office Zakaria Abdel Aziz, a former President of the Judges Club (Egypt’s representative body of judges) and a leading advocate of judicial independence.

“The intensity of Egypt’s attacks against individual judges is reaching a frightening level,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Program.

“By removing judges from the office following mass, arbitrary and unfair disciplinary proceedings, the authorities are purging from the judiciary the very voices that have promoted its independence, and sending a chilling message to others who might challenge the ongoing crackdown on fundamental rights and freedoms in Egypt,” he added.

The ICJ had previously raised concerns about fairness of these proceedings as well as the nature of the charges against the concerned judges. In the “July 2013 Statement Case” and the “Judges for Egypt Case,” the Disciplinary Board found that the judges had been involved in politics and were therefore “unfit” to carry out their functions.

Article 73 of Egypt’s Judicial Authority Law prohibits judges from engaging in “political activity.” This prohibition was interpreted by the Disciplinary Board to include “discussing or commenting on legislative and governmental decisions as long as it does not pertain to a case that he [the judge] is looking into as part of his judicial function.”

The ICJ considers that the interpretation by the Disciplinary Board could result in arbitrary limitations to the judges’ right to freedom of expression, assembly and association, well beyond any restrictions that could possibly be justified as necessary to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

Furthermore, these disciplinary proceedings have failed to meet international standards of fairness, the ICJ says.

The Geneva-based organization previously highlighted procedural flaws in the proceedings against the judges such as failure to be notified properly, to be represented before the Board and to be provided with adequate time and facility to prepare a defense.

“The Egyptian authorities must reinstate all judges that have been removed from their office as a result of unfair and arbitrary proceedings”, said Benarbia.

“Furthermore, they must amend the Judicial Authority Law to ensure that disciplinary offenses are clearly and precisely defined within the law; that the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly in a manner consistent with the dignity of the office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary does not constitute a disciplinary offense; and that the disciplinary procedure is fair and does not undermine the independence and impartiality of the judiciary,” he added.


« GO BACK