This Article represents an explicit breach of the provisions of the Egyptian Constitution and international conventions to which Egypt is party although they are deemed an integral part of the Egyptian legislation and supersede laws in application. Further, the Article contradicts with explicit judicial precedents rendered by the Supreme Constitutional Court as illustrated and clarified in the following sections.
Egypt is misleadingly portrayed in today’s popular narrative as a country in which the government is centralized and monolithic, such that an autocratic President backed by the military controls all the mechanisms of government authority, and therefore has the ability to exert effective control over judicial decision-making (and as corollaries, that judicial decision-making reflects the will of the President and the President should be held accountable for judicial decision-making).
The independence of universities is defined as: “the freedom of the university to manage its administrative, financial and academic affairs without any interference from any external party, whether the state or the institutions of society
The judges are the custodians on well implementing of the law to guarantee the rights which considered the basis of building the community and justice prevails.
No doubt the writing document was considered the most powerful among the evidences of proof before the digital revolution because all laws handle the writing documents as the most powerful proof that submit to the judge . This matter is no longer existed under the modern technology and revolution of information and communication which result in new proof that is electronic contract and signature.
A Parliamentary Committee can be an appropriate forum for judges to give their views on current issues affecting the administration of justice and to allow them to comment upon appropriate topics. In recent times the senior judiciary has responded to invitations to comment on the creation of the Ministry of Justice.
Independence from whom and what? It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them…
The Master of the Rolls is, by virtue of his office, a judge of the Court of Appeal and and is the President of its Civil Division. He is responsible for the deployment and organisation of the work of the judges of the division as well as presiding in one of its courts.
Complaints about judicial conduct are considered by a nominated judge, who will either make a recommendation straight away to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, or refer the case to an investigating judge. Ultimately a recommendation will be made to the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor, who will have to decide what action, if any, to take.
We have stated that judges who commit a criminal offence may be subject to an investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints and may be subject to a disciplinary sanction in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Apart from this, however, it is clear that judges are not subject to this ‘sacrificial accountability’.
The truth is that the judiciary is accountable, but in a different manner. The reason for this difference is a fundamental feature of our constitution going to the very heart of our democracy. The difference stems from the need to ensure that judges are impartial and independent of central and local government and from pressures from the media, companies, and pressure groups while exercising their judicial functions.
The costume of a High Court judge, for example – a long robe, a full hood with a cowl covering the shoulders and a mantle (or cloak) – was more or less established by the time of Edward III (1327-77) and was based on the correct dress for attending the royal court.