.
.
.
.

Court documents show reasons behind Egyptian court’s decision on Red Sea islands

Published: Updated:

Cairo – Documents from Egypt’s Court for Urgent Matters have revealed the circumstances that lead to their decision to void the ruling of the Supreme Administrative court on the Tiran and Sanafir islands in the Red Sea.

The court explained that the Constitutional Court has settled that the acts of sovereignty falls within the jurisdiction of the state, although there is no explicit text of this as stated by the law of the judiciary and the Council of State on the grounds that the actions of a sovereign nation and its relationship with foreign countries are outside the jurisdiction of the internal judiciary. Adding that International convention and what it contains is a matter of sovereignty which is beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

The court also stated that Egypt’s supreme and administrative courts had issued their judgments in the dispute concerning an act of sovereignty since the convention had been concluded by the executive authority as a governing authority in the scope of its political work and its relationship with another foreign state as legally authorized by article 151 of the Constitution.

The court decided on dismissing the Administrative Court’s ruling pronounced in the lawsuits 43709 and 43866 of the judicial year 70 as well as the ruling on appeal 74236 for the year 62 judicial of the administrative Supreme Court and considered them non-existent and charged the defendants’ the lawyers’ fees.

The case’s attorney Ashraf Farahat told Al Arabiya that the Supreme Administrative Court violated Article 17 of the Judicial Authority Law and Article 11 of the Law of the Council of State, which state that the judiciary cannot rule on acts of sovereignty and the Convention is an act of sovereignty. Egypt’s constitution also states that any such cases need to be discussed in parliament, which has the right to approve or otherwise.

He added that the Council of State is prohibited from considering applications for sovereignty, whether directly or indirectly, and therefore what was issued is considered a violation to the other powers of the state, outside of its mandate and the ruling is null and void.