On 22 April 2023, the Cabinet introduced a sudden condition obliging everyone appointed in all sectors, bodies and authorities of the state to complete a six-month qualification course at the Military Academy in Cairo, including new appointees in the various judicial bodies and authorities, whether the Public Prosecution, the State Council, the Administrative Prosecution or the State Lawsuits Authority.
Before the Cabinet’s decision, appointments of members of the judicial bodies and authorities were subject only to the Judicial Authority Law, specifically Articles 38 and 116 concerning the conditions for appointing members of the judicial bodies and the Public Prosecution, which contained no mandatory condition requiring new appointees to undergo qualification courses at the Military College and pass them as a condition of appointment; rather, the two articles set out specific routes, all of them subject to the judicial authority, namely that anyone appointed to the judiciary must hold Egyptian nationality and have full civil capacity, that his age at appointment must not exceed 30 years, and that his age must not be less than 30 years if the appointment is to the courts of first instance, 38 years if the appointment is to the courts of appeal and 41 years if the appointment is to the Court of Cassation; that he must hold a law degree from one of the faculties of law at Egypt’s universities or an equivalent foreign certificate, and in the latter case must pass the equivalence examination in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations; that he must not have been convicted by the courts or disciplinary boards of a matter prejudicial to honour, even if he has been rehabilitated; and that he must be of good conduct and good reputation; and no one other than assistant prosecutors may be appointed directly to the post of assistant except after sitting an examination whose conditions and rules are set by a decision of the Minister of Justice following the approval of the Supreme Judicial Council.
Appointments in the judicial authority continued under those criteria until the new condition concerning the qualification course was introduced, which angered the judges at the time, and they announced their categorical rejection of the decision of the head of government, Mostafa Madbouly, to subject appointees in the government sector to government training courses at the Military Academy as a main condition among the requirements for appointment, and to include appointees in the judicial bodies in this condition.
According to a confidential official letter obtained by Zawia3 , the judges expressed their anger through the then head of the Judges Club, Counsellor Mohamed Abdel Mohsen, who sent the letter on 9 July 2023 to the then President of the Court of Cassation and head of the Supreme Judicial Council, Counsellor Mohamed Eid Mahgoub, in which he affirmed that this decision explicitly infringes the independence of the judiciary and constitutes interference by the government in the work of the judicial authority, which is entrusted with training and with choosing who works in the judiciary and overseeing their training, especially given the existence of a training centre for members of the Public Prosecution that puts new appointees through intensive training courses before they take up professional work.
The head of the Judges Club asked the head of the Supreme Judicial Council to intervene in the matter after his categorical rejection of it, and to deal with it in the way he saw fit to prevent interference in the work of the judicial authority and the infringement of judicial independence resulting from this decision.
The text of the letter read: “With regard to the circular issued by decision of the Prime Minister to the ministers on the necessity of candidates for any government post passing a six-month course, with this being considered one of the requirements for appointment, since this matter is inconceivable for candidates to work in the judiciary, given that the Supreme Judicial Council alone, in accordance with the law, is independently competent to set the necessary rules for filling that post, as the body most fit to choose who bears that trust, it follows that no one should share with it or contest it in this competence, which touches on the independence of the judiciary.”
Judges’ Children Fail
Despite the judges’ anger and their appeal to the then head of the Supreme Judicial Council to intervene in the matter, the council failed to meet the judges’ wish that the decision not be applied to them. With the start of implementation, a number of the children of judges and counsellors failed the medical examinations qualifying for the training course at the Military College, in the 2021 Public Prosecution cohort, the earlier Public Prosecution grievances, the 2020 Administrative Prosecution grievances and the State Council cohort, as confirmed by four judicial sources who spoke to Zawia3.
According to judicial sources in the technical offices of the judicial bodies and authorities, speaking to us, 47 children of judges and counsellors failed the examinations in the State Council cohort, 26 in the Administrative Prosecution grievances cohort, and about 100 in the Public Prosecution cohort and its grievances, while the State Lawsuits Authority has not issued its results.
The matter angered the judges again after their children failed, and they began attacking the new appointment condition in the judicial bodies and demanded its abolition, pointing out that it constitutes interference in the judicial authority by the other authorities in the state’s administrative structure.
Commenting on this, Judge Ahmed Shahawy, president of a court of appeal at the Economic Court in Egypt, in a comment (obtained by Zawia3) that he published on 9 January on the Judges Club’s group on the social media site “Facebook”, called “Judges Club” (a closed group), called for the abolition of the condition of obtaining the mandatory qualification courses at the Military College as a main condition among the requirements for appointing new members of the judicial bodies and authorities.
He said: “The decision obliging applicants for judicial posts to obtain the course poses a danger that raises many fears and criticisms, because of the effects it may have on the civilian character of the institutions of justice and their independence. This decision is an encroachment on the nature of judicial work, which requires complete independence away from any military influence. Moreover, requiring the qualification course constitutes an obstacle for qualified young people wishing to join the judiciary, especially given the financial and administrative burdens it imposes. Added to this, this condition may be interpreted as an attempt to generate financial revenue for the Military College, which turns the course into a tool for profit instead of developing judicial skills.”
He continued: “Imposing physical and psychological tests as a condition for appointment to judicial posts conflicts with the requirements of the profession, and may also constitute discrimination against groups such as women and people with special needs. In addition, the lack of transparency regarding the course’s procedures, such as its costs and criteria, raises questions about this decision. This approach poses a danger to the principle of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, which is one of the pillars of democracy and the rule of law; it also undermines the principle of equal opportunities and gives the military establishment unjustified influence over the judicial authority, which contradicts the Constitution and its principles. It is therefore necessary to carry out a comprehensive review to ensure that the independence and prestige of the judiciary are preserved, while respecting the constitutional principles that affirm the civilian character of state institutions, and to avoid burdening applicants with additional burdens that do not contribute to enhancing the efficiency of judicial work.”
Requests for Exceptions
The judges remained angry and demanded intervention with senior officials in the executive authority to resolve the matter, which did indeed happen. It began with the head of the Judges Club, Counsellor Abu El-Hussein Adly Qayed, who announced through two judicial groups, the first named (Judges Club – Official Group) on the social media site “Facebook” and the second named (Egypt Judges Club News and Offers) on the social media application “WhatsApp”, that he had been in contact with the Minister of Justice, Counsellor Adnan Fangary, to make an exception for and accept the grievances of judges’ children only, among those who had failed the sports tests qualifying for the qualification course.
The head of the Judges Club said in his message to the judges: “Regarding what is currently being raised about our children from the 2021 cohort who were not notified of the sports test, contact has been made with the Minister of Justice to settle the matter,” asking the judges to send their children’s details to him privately.
Following the posts by the head of the Judges Club, Counsellor Abu El-Hussein Adly Qayed, which he published on 9 January, all the candidates competing against him for the seat of head of the Judges Club, seven judges in number, withdrew from the elections to renew one third of the board of directors, for which campaigning had already begun and which are scheduled to be held for the seat of chairman of the club’s board, to complete the remaining term of the board, which ends at the end of the current year, 2025, as well as for two seats allocated to counsellors, two seats for court presidents and judges, and two seats for members of the Public Prosecution.
The matter did not stop at the head of the Judges Club requesting exceptions and intervention for judges’ children alone, to the exclusion of others; the head of the Club of the Administrative Prosecution Authority, Counsellor Abdel Raouf Moussa, also announced his intervention with officials to resolve the crisis, affirming in remarks on 10 January in the group for members of the Administrative Prosecution, named (The Official Page of the Club of Counsellors of the Administrative Prosecution), that the crisis is on its way to being resolved and that there is, in his words, a breakthrough on the matter of their children’s medical examination.
The Military Courses
Information is circulating among judges, according to a number of them with whom we spoke, indicating that the person behind the decision to subject appointees in the judicial bodies to qualification training courses at the Military Academy as a main condition among the requirements for appointment is the former Minister of Justice, Counsellor Omar Marwan, the current head of the Office of the President of the Republic.
According to the account circulating among the judges, the director of the Military Academy told a number of those undergoing the training courses that the one who requested the proposal was “Counsellor Omar Marwan, and it was not a government or presidential orientation”. We at Zawia3 tried to contact the former Minister of Justice to respond to these claims, but he had not replied to us by the time this report was published.
The head of the Justice Support Foundation at the Arab Centre for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, Nasser Amin, comments to us on these courses. He says: “As for the legality of the mandatory training courses at the Military Academy for candidates for judicial work, they constitute a crime against the judicial authority and against the independence of the judiciary and the entire justice system, and it is a crime unprecedented in Egypt since 1883: that those working in the judiciary should be put through training courses in military institutions.”
He adds that these trainings, and considering them one of the conditions of appointment, violate the Constitution, the Judicial Authority Law and the international standards on the rules for selecting and appointing members of the judicial authority. Moreover, these training courses expose everyone who takes part in them to losing their fitness to hold judicial office, which presupposes that the curricula for their training are drawn up by members of the judicial authority and under the supervision of the judicial authority, and not under the supervision of the executive authority or any body affiliated with the executive authority in any way whatsoever.
Amin explains that these courses violate the United Nations principles on the independence of the judiciary issued in 1985, and that they also distort the knowledge base of candidates for work in the Public Prosecution and subsequently the judiciary, and therefore “they must stop immediately, because they represent an encroachment by the executive authority on the matter of forming and qualifying members of the judicial authority.”
The head of the Justice Support Foundation affirms that the head of the Supreme Judicial Council, the Minister of Justice and also the members of the Judges Club will “be held to account before history for their acceptance of these disgraceful procedures regarding the qualification and training of members of the judicial authority, and their acceptance of exposing applicants to such courses as one of the conditions on the basis of which those working in judicial work may be accepted”, pointing out that a very great distortion is now taking place in the judicial body as a result of these training courses, the extent of whose harmful and negative effect on the judicial system in the future is unknown.
He stresses that this matter is the most serious threat to judicial independence in more than 70 years, explaining: “It involves two suspicions: the first is a breach of the principle of separation of powers, and the second is an infringement of the independence of the judicial authority. Any interference in the affairs of the judiciary, starting with their appointment, qualification, training, work, transfer and secondment, is interference prohibited under the provisions of the Constitution in its Articles 165 on the independence of the judicial authority, 166 on the independence of judges and the impermissibility of any authority interfering in cases or in the affairs of justice, and 173 on the Supreme Judicial Council.”
Discrimination in Favour of the Judiciary’s Children
Human rights lawyer Saleh Hasballah, a lawyer before the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Constitutional Court and former legal adviser to the Ain Shams University Independence Movement, affirms in his conversation with us that singling out judges’ children alone, to the exclusion of others, for exceptions, grievances, reviews and retesting in the sports tests qualifying for the training course is a “compound” crime in violation of the Egyptian Constitution.
He adds: “If the training courses are a legal violation against the judicial authority, then the discrimination currently being committed is a further, additional crime, committing an explicit violation of the text of the Egyptian Constitution. Either it is cancelled for everyone or applied to everyone without discrimination.”
Hasballah explains that Article 53 of the Constitution, which falls under the chapter (Rights and Freedoms), stipulates: “Citizens are equal before the law, and they are equal in rights, freedoms and public duties; there shall be no discrimination between them on the grounds of religion, belief, sex, origin, race, colour, language, disability, social level, political or geographical affiliation, or for any other reason. Discrimination and incitement to hatred are a crime punishable by law. The state is committed to taking the necessary measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination, and the law regulates the establishment of an independent commission for this purpose.”
Human rights lawyer Mostafa El-Sayed Allwan, chairman of the board of the “Rights for Legal Consultancy and International Arbitration” foundation, considers in his conversation with us that the intervention of the heads of the Judges Club and of the Club of Counsellors of the Administrative Prosecution Authority in the appointments of members of the judicial bodies, with the aim of absorbing the anger of some members of the judiciary whose relatives did not meet the conditions for filling the judicial post, and their intervention in the matter on the basis of their official positions to pressure decision-makers to recycle their admission files, is an exception that constitutes a violation of the rights stipulated in the Constitution and of what international charters and treaties have established in achieving the principle of equality in filling public office, especially judicial office, which requires meeting the conditions for filling it so that the candidate has the minimum required to ascend the judicial bench.
He continues: “Recycling the files of the children of members of the judicial bodies who failed the courses required for nomination, to the exclusion of the other candidates from among the people, in order to contain the anger of their relatives among the senior figures of the judicial bodies, is a violation of the principle of equality and creates internal resentment by steering the course of justice towards a particular group, in flagrant disregard of the Constitution and international charters.”
Allwan considers it likely that such conduct is being pursued in order to use it as a tool in ongoing elections, and he believes that this departs from integrity of conduct and the pursuit of the public interest, especially given the timing of the intervention with decision-makers, coinciding with ongoing elections whose first result was the withdrawal of all the competitors of the head of the Judges Club from running against him in the elections whose stages have begun.
International law specialist Mohamed Mahmoud Mehran, a member of the American and European Societies of International Law, affirms that a grievance is an inherent right guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution and law as well as by all international charters, but that it may not be confined to one group to the exclusion of the rest of the people.
He notes in his conversation with Zawia3 that it is unacceptable to discriminate in retaking the qualification tests for the training course, since Article 53 of the Constitution explicitly stipulates that “citizens are equal before the law, and they are equal in rights, freedoms and public duties; there shall be no discrimination between them”, pointing out that any exception for a particular group to the exclusion of others conflicts with this constitutional principle.
The international law specialist explains that judges, as fathers, enjoy full constitutional and legal rights to defend their children’s interests like any Egyptian citizen, pointing out that their moving to demand their children’s rights is legitimate and guaranteed by law, but he explained that these demands must be made within the framework of the law and the Constitution and in a way that guarantees equality and equal opportunities for all citizens without discrimination, stressing that success in achieving the demand for retesting must benefit all applicants according to unified and transparent criteria, in fulfilment of the principle of equality before the law, which is one of the most important principles of the Egyptian judiciary.
Between the government decision requiring the application of the condition of qualification courses at the Military Academy for anyone wishing to obtain a job within the state’s apparatus, and the anger of groups working in the judiciary and the attempt to absorb that anger with promises of exceptions for their failed children, the question remains: will the authorities widen the gap between the different classes of the people if they apply those exceptions? And does applying the decision impose interference on the judicial authority, which is independent by virtue of the Constitution?
