|
The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights Annual report 1999-2000 |
eohr@eohr.org info@eohr.org
eohr@link.com.eg
|
Introduction
Section One Section Two : Section Three Section Four |
The Human Rights Situation in Egypt Violations of Human Rights 2000-2001 Ninth: The Right to Establish Parties, Associations & Unions First: Political Parties: -The Years of 1999 and 2000 did not witness any changes in the performance of the Committee of Political Parties in terms of its constant refusal of all forwarded requests for the formation of new political parties. The EOHR has noted that this committee has refused the formation of (50) parties since its establishment until now.It is to be noted that Committee of Political Parties was established in accordance to Law # 40/1977, meaning that any party which wishes to participate on the political field must be screened before the committee. The constituency of the Committee of Political Parties is determined by the Head of the Shura Council, as well as the Ministers of Justice, the Interior, and the State Minister for the Affairs of the Peoples' Assembly & the Shura Council. Three members - from amongst the former heads of judicial committees (not belonging to or affiliated with any one political party) - are also included in the committee, however, their presence is neither obligatory nor binding; these members' input is viewed as being consultative. The committee, consisting essentially of the three aforementioned ministers, makes its decisions based on the majority's vote. The Committee of Political Parties has the authority to: 1- Cease the activities of any political party 2- Cease the publications/newspapers of any party 3- Overturn the decisions/actions of any party in violation to the national legal statutes (Article 17/3) 4- Deny any person's affiliation to a political party and/or prevent any person from partaking in any political activities (Article 6, Law 33,1978) 5- Legally & judicially recommend the dissolution of any political party and the liquidation of its assets/capital as well as to limit/deny the sources of its funding - by decree of the Administrative Courts (Article 1/18) The Committee of Political Parties has, since it conception, denied the formation of (50) political parties. It has approved of the formation of three parties - The Arab Socialist Party (Gamal Rabee') followed by the Tagamuu' Party (Khaled Mohie el Dein) and the Ahrar Party (Mustafa Kamel Murad.) The Labor Party was later legalized followed by the ruling National Democratic Party and then the Umma Party. As for the rest of the remaining parties the New Wafd Party was legalized by judicial appeal. The Committee of Political Parties had initially approved of the formation of the New Wafd Party but then ruled for the cessation of all its activities. The party, however, managed through judicial rulings to return to the political arena. In the period from 1977 to the year 2000, the Committee of Political Parties, as was previously mentioned, had agreed to the formation of only two parties - the Wafd and the Wafaq Al Qawmi Parties. Simultaneously, however, the committee had refused the formation of the remaining fifty parties. Given the aforementioned information, it becomes clear that Law # 40 for the year 1977, known as the law of political parties, as well as the Committee of Political Parties, which is conceived on the basis of this same law, genuinely and fundamentally violate the freedom, and the right to establish political parties in Egypt. This law has stipulated in its forth article that: 1- Any party's actions, beliefs, programs, goals, or policies are forbidden to contradict with: 1st) The Islamic Shari'a - regarding the Shari'a as being the primary source of jurisprudence, without taking into consideration the rights of religious minorities regarding this issue. 2nd) The principles of the July 1952 Revolution, and the so-called May 15 Revolution of 1971. There is, however, no distinct clear-cut understanding of the principles of "May 15 Revolution of 1971" as there is no uniform technical or political explanation of this "revolution" which was essentially an attempt to reform the policies undertaken in the 1952 Revolution. Thus Article # 4 of Law # 40/1977 dictates that all political parties regardless of their doctrines, beliefs, or ideologies must abide by the principles of the 1952 Revolution as well as the (ambiguous and widely disputed) events of May 1971. Article #9 of Law 40/1977 states that all parties are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of gender, religion, or race. This same article also dictates, however, that all parties are forbidden from forming armed wings/militias. All parties are also forbidden from affiliation with foreign parties whose policies contravene the political system prevailing in Egypt. The same article states that all parties are forbidden from opposition to the Camp David Accords. It must be noted, however, that following the "Case of Arab Nasserite Party" the Constitutional Court ruled this section of the clause as being unconstitutional. At the beginning of the year 2000 the Committee for Party Affairs issued a decree refusing the formation of a party under the name of the Egyptian Shari'a Party. The Committee had in 1999 refused the request for the formation of this party by an Islamic fundamentalist lawyer named Mamdouh Ismail. He had presented the committee with the necessary papers for the foundation of a political party, yet the committee refused his request on the grounds that his proposed party's program could not be distinguished from those of any of the already-existing parties in the political arena. It is to be noted that the board did not deny the request to establish the party on the grounds that its proposed program was Islamist in nature, nor on the grounds that it was to be a religious party. The would-be party's founder, Mamdouh Ismail, later claimed that the government did not wish to have the Islamic current participating on the political field or on the level of the masses. His claims against the government resulted in having him banned from preaching in a certain mosque. On May 20th of the year 2000 the Committee of Political Parties issued a decree referring the Labor Party's file to the Social Attorney General so as to investigate the issues in dispute with the party and its leadership. The committee decided to suspend the activities of the Labor Party as well as the publication of its newspaper "Al Shaab" until the conclusion of the investigations at the Social Attorney General's office with the party's leadership, after which the issue would be presented before the Board of Political Parties and the governmental authorities. The committee had decided not to take any legal action against the party members involved in the dispute until a verdict had been reached. It is to be noted that the closure of the party's newspaper had led to the unemployment of more than sixty journalists working with the party's paper as well more than ten others involved in the management and other workers involved at the party's press. Internal conflicts had arisen within the Labor party as of the year 1998 due to disputes among the Islamist and socialist wings of the party. The consequences of numerous internal conflicts, after which followed the journalistic party-led campaigns, as well as the demonstrations and protests which the party is accused of provoking - especially that of the opposition against the publication of the novel "A Feast of the Seaweeds" by the Syrian writer Heidar Heidar. All these actions led to the intervention by the Committee of Political Parties so as to investigate into the disturbances caused by the party. Parties have depended on Article 17 of the Law of Political Parties, which states that the Committee of Political Parties is not to suspend the parties' publication of newspapers as such actions stand against national interests. The Committee of Political Parties is to order the suspension of the publication of a newspaper only if its contents are discriminatory, politically misleading, or if it threatens the national unity or social/religious harmony. In such cases the committee is to issue its order of suspension upon the date of publication. The case of the Labor Party and of its newspaper "Al Sha'ab" are still in dispute as of the publication of this report, despite the issuing of several judicial rulings by the State Council and the Administrative Court declaring the invalidity of the decisions taken by the Committee of Political Parties especially those regarding the closure of the newspaper's publication. However, the government has not implemented these rulings and has insisted on delaying the implementation of the final judicial rulings. Such actions threaten to hinder the process of democratization in Egypt and threaten the social and political freedoms of the Egyptian populace. Therefore, the repression of the Labor Party and the closure of it newspaper, as well as the delay in the implementation of judicial rulings, have revealed that the government's policing actions do not abide by the constitution and are in fact detrimental to the development of democracy in Egypt. It has been proven that the Committee of Political Parties, by banning the publication of the "Al Shaab" Newspaper, has violated Articles 48 and 208 of the Egyptian Constitution both of which warn against banning the publications, not to mention that this represents a violation of press freedoms. The Board of Political Parties had refused the establishment the following parties (arranged in order) during the year 2000: 1. The "Geel al-Democraty" Party 2. The "Al-Nile" Party 3. The "Al-Islah" Party 4. The "Mubarak al-Nahda" Party 5. The "Al-Karama" Party 6. The "Al-Tarabout al-Araby" Party 7. The "Al-Gomhoury" Party 8. The "Misr 2000" Party Second: The Unions: -Regarding labor unions, the Engineers' Union is still subjected to judicial guardianship due to rulings, and it is to be noted that this kind of surveillance was implemented as of 1995 which was followed by a verdict issued by the Primary Court of Shebine el Kom for Urgent Cases placing the Teachers' Subsidiary Union, due to the existence of monetary violations, under the appointment of a judicial guard in the appeal # 75/1996.The two years of 1999 and 2000 witnessed a great change regarding the settlement of the issue of the elections for the Lawyers' Syndicate following a legal and political conflict lasting six years from the year 1995 to 2001. In the year 1996 a verdict was issued subjecting the General Union of Lawyers to judicial guardianship and the appointment of judicial guards. Later, and specifically on October 18, 1997, a verdict was implemented against the Cairo Union which is one of the largest and oldest subsidiary lawyers' unions in Egypt. Despite the fact that the legal contents of the verdict were directed against the General Syndicate of Lawyers, only, and not the subsidiary unions - which are independent lawyers' organizations - nevertheless, the verdict subjecting the general union to judicial guardianship was also implemented against nine subsidiary unions. These subsidiary unions include those of Cairo, Alexandria, Qalyubiya, Gharbiya, Sharqiya, Daqhaliya, Aswan, and Munufiya, none of which received verdicts from the courts - but were, nevertheless, placed under judicial guardianship. Judicial Guards and Reconciliation: A judicial guard named Mohammed Sabri Mabdi, had been following a policy of personally directing the management of the union and its funds. And in fact the union had been directing certain amounts of money with neither the signatures nor the authorization of the other two judicial guards - Ahmed Reda al-Ghatouri and Mohammed Hassan al-Mahdi. The authorizations came solely from Mabdi, and when the other two guards learnt of this occurrence it had become the source of conflict amongst the three guards. This conflict resulted in the filing of lawsuits by the guards against each other. Mohammed Sabri Mabdi had filed a suit against the other two guards claiming that their accusations against him of personally managing the unions funds were baseless, as he alone could not possess the authority to do so. And following the attempts for the reconciliation of the guards by a number of lawyers, an agreement was arrived at amongst the three guards on 22/09/1997 ending their conflict. The agreement involved the designation of each guard to a certain function in the union's management. It was agreed upon that Mohammed Sabri Mabdi would be appointed chairman of the union, Ahmed Reda al-Ghatouri as secretary general, and Mohammed Hassan al-Mahdi as treasurer. This agreement was arrived at through the concerted efforts of the guards to comprehensively control the union together. The guards, having ensured their control over the union, collaborated together to extend the verdict of judicial guardianship over the subsidiary unions as well as extending the practice of appointing judicial guards to control union management. Important Judicial Verdict Issued Insuring the Indefinite Postponement of Elections: A provisional board of influential lawyers was founded through the efforts of a general emergency organization of lawyers which was convened on May 15th 1997. This board called for the end of judicial guardianship, handing over the union to its original members, and union supervision by union members until elections could be held. When the judicial guards refused to recognize the authority/legitimacy of this provisional board it filed a judicial lawsuit through its representative Dr. Mohammed 'Asfour. The suit was directed against The Minister of Justice, Minister of the Interior, and against the three judicial guards of the subsidiary lawyer's union. Dr. 'Asfour's demands included the end of judicial guardianship, and the empowerment of the provisional board to control union management. The verdict in this case was delayed until the court, which convened on the 19th of October 1997, ordered that the case be referred to the Court of Judiciary Management, as the original court did not specialize in such cases. The case was referred to the Specialized Southern Cairo Primary Court. The indefinite delay in the issuing of a verdict for this case, due to the lengthiness of the courts' proceedings, has served in permitting the extension of judicial guardianship. It is also to be noted that the president of the judicial board (established according to Law 100/1993), which is responsible for monitoring elections, is also the head of the Southern Cairo Primary Court which is responsible for the aforementioned case. Given this information, it can be easily deduced that the holding of elections has become an irresolvable dilemma. Neither can the case be resolved through the issuance of a court verdict nor through judicial appeal, as is legally specified. The case remains within the hands of the Judicial Committee, which is legally empowered to determine when, and if, elections are to be held, as well as to monitor these elections. Thus the prolonging of its procedures is an unjustifiable bureaucratic set back to the elections. The indefinite postponement of elections mirrors the government's control over the judicial board, as well as its refusal to accept the holding of elections in which lawyers representing the opposition may freely express their opinions. Currently there is also a law suit, number 190/1998, before the Cairo Primary Court for the imposition of judicial guardianship over the General Union of Teachers as well as its subsidiary unions in the other governorates. The 'Abdeen Court for Immediate Review is also looking into six judicial law suits for the imposition of judicial guardianship over the Artists' Syndicate. This case was presented before the court following suits filed by a number of the syndicate's members for the formation of a general assembly so as to isolate the board and the syndicate's chairman. The EOHR views the suits filed for the imposition of judicial guardianship over labor unions and syndicates - which has resulted in the indefinite postponement of elections, as well as in the marginalization of the role and independence of labor unions/syndicates - as a mechanism for the repression of union activism. Judicial Guardianship is also misused for the purpose of controlling and stifling Egyptian Civil Society - as is exemplified through the limitations placed on unions and syndicates, which have suffocated and paralyzed their activities, opinions, and independence leaving the government in full control of Egyptian society. Third: Non-Governmental Organizations & Civil Society:- The year 2000 witnessed a major legal development with the High Constitutional Court's issuance of, as of June the 3rd, a verdict declaring the unconstitutionality of a number of legal articles included in Law # 153/1999. This law, also known as the NGO Law, which was never presented before the Shura Council was canceled and ruled as being unconstitutional. The philosophy of the previous law governing NGOs and civil society, according to the Minister of Social Affairs & Insurance, was the liberation of civil society. And since the beginning of discussions regarding the issue of implementing the new law, the aforementioned Minister has urged human rights organizations and civil rights activists to meet with her so as to discuss the law and to express their views and suggestions regarding this issue. The minister has also encouraged their participation, along with that of various different public figures, in the founding of councils for the promotion of rights for Egyptian Civil Society. Civil rights activists had been waiting in anticipation for a new law entitling Egypt's civil society to genuine freedom from managerial interference on the part of government authorities and officials. Nevertheless, any hopes or feelings of optimism evaporated upon the Egyptian Cabinet's convention. The ministers, during their meetings and discussions, had looked into the issue of the new law and its presentation before the Peoples' Assembly. Following their meetings and discussions, civil society was shocked upon discovering that the new law was a replica of Law 32/1964. In fact the new law was more restrictive and repressive against civil freedoms in Egypt to the extent that it could be considered to a be a law of burial. Civil Organizations and SocietiesThere is not one reason as to why the government should be required to involve itself directly in syndicate/society management, and in the creation of new laws and regulations when it could have simply upheld Law 32/1964. The government has sought to alter the law in order to more effectively control organizations working in the field of human rights.In reality, as has been revealed through the arguments and discussions held in the Peoples' Assembly, the government's interests and policies are especially hostile towards human rights organizations, and are generally hostile towards civil society and civil rights organizations. The Prime Minister's stance against the unexpectedly strong resistance from the opposition and independents within the parliament reflects the government's interests in altering Law 32/1964 in its favor. When comparing Law 32 to the New Law, the Ministry of Social Affairs had declared that, the New Law has been stripped of 22 articles that had previously given the government the right to intervene in management. In fact, this is not true; upon comparing, the previous, Laws #153/1999 and 32/1964 with the New Law it is evident that governmental authorities have preserved, in the New Law, all the repressive articles in the old law; and have also added new measures with which to repress Egyptian civil society. The New Law stipulates that the establishment of civil organizations still requires licensing from the administrative authorities - which remain hostile towards the demands of civil organizations and the institutions of civil society in general. It is worth mentioning that this method, of establishing organizations and societies, was utilized in the establishment of the companies by amendment which took place as of 18/01/1998 by Law # 3/1998. As for the field of activities the New Law has adopted a philosophy of amendment regarding Law 32/1964. Whereas the Old Law had determined the acceptable activities and the fields in which organizations could partake, the New Law has determined the specific activities and actions from which organizations are forbidden involvement in. In addition to this the New Law is written utilizing a very vague and indefinite language which could easily be used against any organization - i.e.- prohibition from involvement in political action. The governmental authorities have the last word in determining what they consider to be political action, and therefore maintain the right to dissolve any organization within three days by decree from the courts if it is determined that the organization had partaken in prohibited action according to Article 11 of the law. The most important changes included in the New Law when compared to the Old Law include: The formation of a judicial board for the purpose of mediating, in the occurrence of conflicts, between administrative authorities and NGOS. Upon analyzing the issue of the formation of judicial boards - it is worth noting that these boards are formed by the president of the primary courts and three members (two of which belong with the administrative authorities - with one official member of the administrative authorities, one representative of the General Federation of NGOS appointed by the President of the Republic, and the third being an NGO representative.) In reality this board has violated the role of the administrative judiciary and has served in preventing NGOS and civil society organizations from access to the judiciary. And in order to make matters more complicated and difficult for NGOS, the board has determined, that in order to issue a decision, all organizations' cases must first pass before the board - the case may only reach the judiciary upon the condition of the unanimity of all the board's members agreement to refer the case. If any one member of the board refuses to refer the case to the judiciary, the organization involved (or its representative) does not have the right to file suit. Interference in the activities of civil organizations The New Law, through Article 134, has maintained the Board of Directors right to intervention in the appointment of the administrative councils of civil organizations. Article 134 of the New Law allows the administrative authorities to determine the conditions for the eligibility/ineligibility of any member in any organization's Board of Directors - in other words the authorities are legally empowered to chose whichever candidate they desire, and likewise, to exclude any candidate deemed to be undesirable from membership in an organization's administrative council. Membership in an organization's council is supposed to be the fundamental right of any member in an organization. It is not the role of the governmental authorities to determine the leadership of any organization, as such a role belongs solely to the organization and its constituents. In addition to this, the government authorities have empowered themselves to the extent that they are entitled to intervene and oppose the decisions taken by an organization's administration - which is a fundamental violation of organizations' rights and independence. The right to file suit is a role of organizations' Board of Directors or its members - a third of the members of an organization as an established principles acknowledged by all democracies. However, the issuing of Law 153 has entitled the governmental authorities to the intervention in the affairs of organizations in two conditions: The first condition for intervention: If the number of an organization's members is not sufficient to convene a Board of Directors; in such a case the Minister of Social Affairs would appoint (according to Article 40) a commissioner. The manner and text of this law is very awkward, for why would the governmental administrative authorities bother with the appointment of a commissioner in its name? Financing, Funding, and Aid: The purpose of the work of civilian organizations and civil society associations is non-profit oriented, therefore, these organizations operate through the use of donations received, whether from within Egypt or from abroad. These issues are internationally accepted, where all civil society organizations and societies, whether local or international, depend basically on donations received - whether from the third world or from developed nations. During the preparation of this law, the press began its campaign against human rights organizations - claiming that such organizations received their funding and aid from abroad for the purpose of threatening national security. In other words, according to the press' accusations, the foreign funds which threaten Egypt's national security the most are those funds directed to human rights organizations! It is worth mentioning that those establishments providing funds for human rights organizations are themselves the same organizations providing funds for governmental authorities, national development projects, and university research centers. In addition to this, the government has decided to continue this policy of repression towards human rights and civil society organizations, through the New Law: in order to receive foreign funding - whether from institutions or individuals - any NGO must first apply for permission to do so from the Ministry of Social Affairs. One government official has recommended that NGOs should seek local funding, however, it should be noted that Military Dictate # 4 for the year 1992 warns that any donation/funding received must be approved of & licensed also by the Ministry of Social Affairs, any funding received otherwise is considered a crime punishable by law. Therefore the government has effectively blocked all sources of funds, whether from within Egypt or from abroad. What then is to be done?! An appeal challenging Law # 153/1999 was placed before the Supreme Constitutional Court on the grounds that a number of articles contained in the law are unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Constitutional Court issued its verdict, on the 3rd of June, 2000, that Law # 153/1999 was unconstitutional on the grounds that it was not presented to the Shura Council before being presented to People's Assembly - as it has been determined by the Egyptian Constitution. |
E O H R A N N U A L R E P O R T 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 |
