The most recent rulings passed by two different courts in the period between mid to late November were extremely harsh and raised many concerns about the real integrity of the  Egyptian judiciary and how politicized judges are to pass such rulings against the opposition of the current ruling authority in Egypt.

The most recent rulings passed by two different courts in the period between mid to late November were extremely harsh and raised many concerns about the real integrity of the  Egyptian judiciary and how politicized judges are to pass such rulings against the opposition of the current ruling authority in Egypt.

On November 13, the chief of Al Jamaliya Misdemeanors Court sentenced 12 students affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood with 17 years of imprisonment each and a fine of 65,000 Egyptian Pounds (US $9,400) for attempting to break into the building of al-Azhar Center, rioting, infringement against the staff and security of the center, bullying, illegal gatherings, sabotaging and assaulting employees.

Also, on November 27, Counselor Ahmad Abdul Nabi, Head of Alexandria’s Court of Appeals passed an aggravated sentence against 21 women, 14 of whom were sentenced with 11 years and one month imprisonment while seven juveniles were sent to social care centers for unlimited periods for incitement of violence, disrupting traffic and joining the Muslim Brotherhood.

On December 7, the ruling was appealed and the new ruling was passed for a year of imprisonment with suspension.

 “The two sentences were not that different in suppressing the accused students. The rulings will completely destroy their future as they would be released from prison with bad behavior and hatred against the society, judiciary and state that dealt with them in such a violent manner,” said lawyer Saad Deif Allah. “The ruling did not take into consideration that they are enthusiastic young people. It would have been enough, for example, to refer them to disciplinary boards that could deprive them of having their exams for a year or two, as an intimidation. Instead of sentencing them for one charge, all charges were combined,” he added.

Mhamoud Bakry Afify, a well-known Alexandrian advocate and lawyer of Khaled Said (the most famous victim of torture), explained that the judge in the case of the arrested women breached article 32 of the penal code, stipulating that when an individual commits more than one crime in one incident, the defendant shall be sentenced with the most severe punishment. In this case, it was illegal to combine all charges to issue a sentence of six years of imprisonment.

The difference between the judge and the judiciary

“The lofty judiciary”, “Judiciary is a red line”, “Judiciary is the symbol of the state”; such expressions have been repeated without comprehending their real meanings. They are mere expressions, but unconsciously, we have turned them to idols,” said Ahmad Samir, a lawyer and a former chief of court. He explained: “This is a mere nonsense that we have been repeating without thinking. Lofty judiciary means applying unbiased law on all with no exceptions”. Integrity is basically a characteristic of the law not of the judge who enforces the law, but the description has been generalized on both judiciary and the judge, he added.

There is a difference between the Judiciary platform and the judge, Samir stressed and explained that the first is just and can only be occupied by the honest who do not judge based on their whims but rather follow their conscience and integrity and the latter is related the judges whovary between the honest ones and those who obey authority and follow in its steps just like any other profession. The idea of “the lofty judiciary” was created by the state to maintain the prestige of judiciary, according to him.

The base is corrupt

Tamer Sobhi, political activist and member of Alexandria’s revolution coalition, said there was no just judiciary in Egypt evidenced by the continuity of fabricating charges against political activists and arresting them on bogus charges. The latest rulings against the Muslim Brotherhood, he added, are unjust although we do not agree with and protested against them.

“How could a judge be just if he joined the judiciary by nepotism and bribery in the first place?” Sobhi wondered and added, “We all know that most judges and prosecutors have joined this prestigious profession by paying huge amounts of money as a bribe while others inherited the position where you may find some entire families the members of whom are judges and prosecutors. Thus, how do you expect them to rule fairly?”

However activist Mohammad Masri believes that the propaganda about the integrity of the judiciary was created by Mubarak’s regime to intimidate people from taking to the streets to protest against him because the “just” judiciary would enforce the legal procedures against them. 

On the road

Activist Abdul Rahman Saed said: “To have a just judiciary, the state must first enforce strict laws against any violation committed by judges and that judges must be monitored by high officials unaffiliated with the judiciary. This will help in eliminating corrupt judges.”

Political activist Mohsen Johary also underlined, “Before any member of the prosecution joins the judiciary he should be examined by certain committees to determine his credentials. His diplomas must be scrutinized where a graduate with a mediocre grade may not join the prosecution. Family associations must also be disregarded during the selection process, this way an honest judiciary can be created.”

in addition, activist Yasser Abdul Aziz added, “The role of the judicial inspection should be reactivated. It is supposed monitor and punish any wrongding committed by the judiciary. A large part of the judiciary justice is linked to the practices of this body and its role represented in reacquiring the citizens’ rights and protecting them instead of being against them.”

On the other hand, prosecutor general in Alexandria Yasser Madkore said: “The road to having a just judiciary lies in the confidence in the judiciary, justice and the law. We have gone through two revolutions for social justice and justice will not be reached unless justice enforcement personnel are supported, not by being accused with collusion or lack of integrity because each one of them follows his conscience.”