Last January, a number of MPs submitted briefing requests in parliament addressed to Prime Minister Dr. Mostafa Madbouly and Minister of Communications and Information Technology Dr. Amr Talaat, concerning incidents involving the secondment of counsellors and judges from judicial bodies to the National Postal Authority and their receipt there of salaries exceeding the maximum wage, in clear violation of the law and the constitution.
According to documents and papers obtained by “Zawia3”, these violations include the secondment of judges and counsellors to more than one authority and company, most prominently Counsellor Mohamed Ahmed Abboud, a deputy of the State Council and the son of Counsellor Ahmed Abboud, President of the State Council, who was seconded to three different bodies, which raises suspicions of conflict of interest and abuse of influence.
The documents, obtained exclusively by Zawia3, reveal that the President of the State Council issued a new decision in late 2024 in which he affirmed the ban on seconding the Council’s judges to more than one body, authority or company, a ban that has been in force since 2014; however, the new decision added an exceptional sentence that allows the secondment of his son and some similar cases to continue, which observers considered “legal tailoring” that legitimises these violations.
This comes as the amounts these counsellors receive exceed the maximum wage, which raises questions about the extent to which government bodies are committed to applying the laws regulating salaries and puts the government before a real test in confronting these violations, in addition to the amounts they receive exceeding the maximum wage in violation of the law and the constitution.
Recommended reading: The cracked platform of justice: the appeals allowance stirs anger in the halls of the Egyptian judiciary
Moves inside parliament
MP Mohamed Abdel Rahman Rady, secretary of the Defence and National Security Committee of the House of Representatives, submitted a briefing request, a copy of which was obtained by “Zawia3”, based on the provisions of Article 134 of the constitution and Article 212 of the internal regulations of the House of Representatives, and addressed his request to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Communications and Information Technology, to hold them to account over the violations inside the National Postal Authority, particularly regarding counsellors seconded from judicial bodies receiving salaries that exceed the maximum wage, in clear violation of the law.
In the same context, MP Abdel Moneim Imam, head of the Al-Adl Party and secretary of the Plan and Budget Committee of the House of Representatives, submitted another briefing request, which he published on the party’s official page, dealing with the role of the former chairman of the board of the National Postal Authority, the current Minister of Supply Sherif Farouk, in interfering in the management affairs of the Post for Investment Company and the Post for Distribution Company. The MP referred to decisions No. 227 of 2022 and No. 3998 of 2022, under which Counsellor Dr. Mohamed Ayoub and Counsellor Mohamed Abboud were assigned as representatives of the National Postal Authority to examine legal matters relating to the subsidiary companies, while being granted financial bonuses and allowances.
The MP demanded that the Minister of Communications and Information Technology be questioned about the value of the sums obtained by the two counsellors and whether they exceed the maximum wage, along with a detailed statement from the Authority showing the number of seconded counsellors and the salaries, bonuses and other financial entitlements they receive.
What happened in Dalia El-Baz’s questioning session
Prime Minister Dr. Mostafa Madbouly issued a decision on 27 January 2025 appointing Dalia Abdallah Mohamed El-Baz as chair of the board of directors of the National Postal Authority for one year, effective the same day, which was also the day on which her appointment was discussed in the Communications Committee of the House of Representatives.
“Zawia3” obtained a video of the parliamentary discussion session to which the newly appointed head of the National Postal Authority was subjected, in which she faced MPs’ questions about the briefing requests submitted concerning the interference of the Authority’s former chairman in the management affairs of the Post for Investment Company and the Post for Distribution Company, and his issuing of decisions assigning the counsellors concerned to examine legal matters relating to the subsidiary companies, while granting them financial bonuses and allowances.
During the session, MPs demanded a clear response from the Authority regarding the sums obtained by the two counsellors and whether they exceeded the maximum wage, in addition to a detailed statement showing the number of counsellors seconded within the Authority and the salaries, bonuses and other financial entitlements they receive.
The absence of a clear law on secondment
The documents obtained by “Zawia3”, along with the testimonies of two vice-presidents of the State Council who asked not to be named, revealed the continued absence of a clear law regulating the secondment of judges, even though a full decade has passed since the constitutional text that required its issuance.
On 8 September 2014, the Special Council for Administrative Affairs of the State Council, headed by Counsellor Dr. Gamal Nada (the Council’s president at the time), issued a decision prohibiting the secondment of members and counsellors of the State Council to more than one body, and required those seconded to more than one body to notify the Council’s General Secretariat so that their secondment could be renewed for one body only.
However, this decision was not turned into binding legislation, even though Article 239 of the 2014 constitution explicitly obliged the House of Representatives to issue a law regulating the rules for seconding judges within a period not exceeding five years, in a way that guarantees the abolition of full and partial secondment to bodies other than judicial bodies or those with judicial competence, or to the administration of justice affairs and the supervision of elections. Although the State Council’s Legislation Department received the draft law from the Cabinet on 28 November 2018, it was not issued at the time.
The law remained in limbo until 22 February 2023, when the Ministry of Justice announced that it had finished preparing a new draft to regulate the secondment of members of judicial bodies and authorities, after a study that took years; nevertheless, it has not been issued to this day, and the special councils of the judicial bodies and authorities have remained the de facto regulators of the rules of secondment from 2014 until now.
On 1 October 2024, the President of the State Council, Counsellor Ahmed Abdel Hamid Abboud, issued Decision No. 775 of 2024, whose first article stipulated that “a member of the State Council may not combine his secondment as legal adviser to the body to which he is seconded with membership of its board of directors or of the board of directors of any other body or company affiliated to it”, but he added the sentence “this prohibition does not apply if the seconded counsellor attends the board meetings in his capacity as legal adviser to the body to which he is seconded”, a wording that observers described as “tailored”, opening the door to the continuation of secondment to more than one body and company, which reflects the persistent legislative vacuum in this file.
The State Council President’s crisis
The documents obtained by “Zawia3” revealed the secondment of Counsellor Mohamed Ahmed Abboud, a deputy of the State Council and the son of Counsellor Ahmed Abboud, to three bodies: he was seconded to work at the National Postal Authority, in addition to attending the board meetings of the Post for Investment Company and the Post for Distribution Company.
The documents showed that there was no entitlement to pay any bonuses or money for his attendance at the latter two companies, as the General Assembly of the Fatwa and Legislation Departments of the State Council issued Fatwa No. 166 dated 13 February 2021 on whether members of the board of directors of the Post for Investment Company are entitled to financial bonuses, and concluded that the members of the board of the Post for Investment Company representing the National Postal Authority are not entitled to a share of the distributed profits or any other sums under any name, including in-kind benefits, and that all the money they had obtained must be returned to the National Postal Authority, with the exception of sums paid in return for holding executive positions such as executive chairman of the board or managing director, or for actual expenses in accordance with the rules applicable in the company.
In addition, the documents reveal that despite the fatwa of the State Council’s Fatwa and Legislation Departments, and the request by the head of the National Postal Authority to the Post for Investment Company to return the sums obtained by the seconded counsellors on the basis of this fatwa, because they were unlawful, this fatwa issued by the State Council was not accepted by the Post for Investment Company, on the basis of the arguments set out in its memorandum, and the company refused to return the money; the same thing was repeated with the Post for Distribution Company, according to judicial sources in the State Council and in the House of Representatives.
A violation of the constitution and the law
MP Abdel Moneim Imam, head of the Al-Adl Party and secretary of the Plan and Budget Committee of the House of Representatives, reveals, in exclusive statements to “Zawia3”, legal and constitutional violations relating to the secondment of legal advisers from the State Council to work for more than one body within the National Postal Authority and its subsidiary companies.
Imam explains that the head of the National Postal Authority has legal advisers within the Authority, but they were surprised by a decision issued by the Authority’s former head, the current Minister of Supply Sherif Farouk, to second legal advisers seconded from the State Council to the National Postal Authority to attend the board meetings of the Post for Investment and Post for Distribution companies, while receiving financial bonuses from these companies.
The MP affirms in his conversation with us that this decision violates the law, as the boards of directors of the subsidiary companies are the body authorised to determine which advisers they use, and both the Authority and its subsidiary companies have independent legal personalities, and the same person may not be seconded to work for more than one body at the same time.
In addition, Imam stresses that charging the subsidiary companies of the National Postal Authority with the cost of the advisers seconded to the Authority is illegal, as it conflicts with the Investment Law and contravenes the legal rules and procedures regulating secondment. He added that secondment to more than one body is a legal and constitutional disaster and conflicts with the maximum wage, which makes it a grave violation that requires an immediate halt.
The MP pointed out that some counsellors exploit legal loopholes on the pretext that they are not subject to the maximum wage law, since they are subject to the Judicial Authority Law, explaining that this exception is valid only when they receive their wages from judicial bodies, but does not apply to their receipt of bonuses from executive bodies that are subject to the maximum wage law.
Imam points out that the matter was presented to the head of the National Postal Authority, who affirmed that she had been surprised by these violations and took urgent action to stop the payment of any sums from the companies to the seconded counsellors. He added that the head of the Authority informed the counsellors that no sums would be paid in future for their attendance at the companies’ meetings, and that if they were needed, they would attend only in their capacity as advisers to the National Postal Authority, without receiving any financial entitlements, noting that the decision awaits actual implementation in the coming days.
Wasting public money in the Egyptian Post
For his part, MP Mohamed Abdel Rahman Rady, secretary of the Defence and National Security Committee of the House of Representatives, reveals, in exclusive statements to Zawia3, serious incidents involving the waste of public money inside the Egyptian National Postal Authority and its subsidiary companies, pointing out that the violations range from an advertising campaign that cost millions to legal advisers who received sums of money they were not entitled to.
Rady explains that the legal advisers at the National Postal Authority and its subsidiary companies are seconded from judicial bodies, citing the case of Counsellor Mohamed Ahmed Abboud, son of the President of the State Council, who was seconded to the National Postal Authority and two of its subsidiary companies. He pointed out that Abboud has held a position at the Authority since 2018, even though he was not yet over 35 years old at the time, and in the last fiscal year alone he received 4 million pounds because of his secondment to the three bodies, an unprecedented figure compared with what he received in previous years, according to the report of the Central Auditing Organisation, on which the MPs relied in the briefing request submitted regarding the violations.
In his conversation with us, Rady accuses the President of the State Council of “tailoring” a decision issued in October 2024 that regulates the secondment of State Council judges, so as to allow his son and others in a similar position to be seconded to more than one body and to receive multiple bonuses. He asked indignantly:
“How can the President of the State Council, who has a seconded son, add a paragraph to the decision permitting secondment to more than one body?”, pointing out that the decision should have been presented to the State Council’s Fatwa and Legislation Assembly, to ensure integrity and transparency, in keeping with the judicial principle of “recusal”.
Recommended reading: Judicial immunity: a protective shield or a weapon for corruption in Egypt?
Conflict of interest
Rady criticises the conflict of interest manifested in Counsellor Abboud’s signing of a memorandum addressed to the Minister of Communications, the substance of which was to suspend the fatwa of the General Assembly of Fatwa and Legislation, which required the recovery of the money that the leaders of the Egyptian Post had obtained without entitlement. He explained that Counsellor Abboud justified suspending the implementation of the fatwa on the grounds that the body that had requested it did not accept the General Assembly’s opinion, asking: “Since when is the law applied on the basis of acceptance or rejection?!”.
The member of the House of Representatives affirms that there is chaos in the secondment of legal advisers within ministries and government institutions, which has become a huge financial burden on their budgets, pointing out that the State Council is the only body that monopolises these secondments. He revealed that Cairo Governorate alone has 12 seconded counsellors, and the Ministry of Local Development has 6 seconded counsellors.
He asked: “Why this number of seconded counsellors when there are legal departments in all ministries and government bodies? Should we abolish the legal affairs departments within these bodies?”, stressing that if there is a real need to draw on judicial expertise, it should come from senior, experienced judges, not from young judges who lack a sufficient store of practical experience.
He adds: “After June 2025, will Counsellor Mohamed Abboud continue to receive the same huge sum? Or will his secondment be cancelled once the reason that caused his bonuses to swell to 4 million pounds in 2024 has gone?”, affirming that the answer awaits the response of the Minister of Communications.
Absolute corruption
Nasser Amin, head of the Justice Support Foundation at the Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, affirms in a statement to “Zawia3” that secondment is the “gold of Al-Mu’izz” that power uses to try to control judicial systems in the Middle East, pointing out that secondment and loan assignments represent one of the disasters from which judicial systems in the Arab world suffer.
The human rights lawyer adds that Egypt’s 2014 constitution took note of this problem, which was used for long periods, particularly under the late ousted president Hosni Mubarak before the 25 January 2011 revolution, when secondment was a tool for controlling some judges at certain times. Therefore, the 2014 constitution called for the complete abolition of secondment, particularly with regard to seconding judges to work in non-judicial bodies as advisers, which leads to a dangerous duality, as the judge becomes at the same time part of the judicial and administrative apparatus and a legal adviser to these bodies.
Amin explains that this situation opens the door to absolute corruption, which is what prompted the 2014 constitution, which came after the 2012 constitution, to approve the definitive abolition of secondment, in order to prevent the executive authority from being given tools that enable it to impose its control over judges, especially State Council judges, since they are the body to which citizens turn in their disputes against the government, as well as in disputes between different bodies.
The head of the Justice Support Foundation stresses the need to stop this practice immediately, pointing out that the state and the regime in Egypt are required to respect the constitution and its provisions, and that judicial bodies must refrain from using secondment and loan assignments, since they represent the real entry point through which any ruling authority slips in to corrupt the judicial apparatus.
He adds: “The danger of secondment and its negative impact on the judiciary were recognised by judges long ago, and they called for its immediate abolition, pointing out that this issue was among the most prominent recommendations issued by the First Arab Justice Conference in Beirut in 1999, which the Arab Center organised in cooperation with the International Commission of Jurists and the Beirut Bar Association, where the “Beirut Declaration” explicitly stipulated the rejection of appointment and secondment as a means of controlling judges.”
Furthermore, Amin points out that the “Cairo Declaration on Judicial Independence”, issued in 2003, which the centre organised in cooperation with the United Nations (UNDP), also recommended stopping secondment as a tool used to dominate judges. In addition, the First Justice Conference, held by the Egyptian Judges Club in 1986, recommended ending the secondment system. Amin affirmed that all international documents confirm that secondment poses a danger to judicial independence and is one of the most prominent means by which the executive authority extends its influence over the judicial institution.
Recommended reading: Ahead of the club elections: judges angered after their sons fail military courses
A black hole in the robe of justice
Legal expert Mohamed Hamed Salem, a lawyer before the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Constitutional Court, affirms to “Zawia3” that the constituent authority of the Egyptian constitution obliged parliament to issue a law regulating the secondment of judges and members of judicial bodies, in accordance with Article 239 of the constitution, to guarantee the abolition of full and partial secondment to bodies other than judicial bodies or committees with judicial competence, or the administration of justice affairs, or the supervision of elections, within five years of the constitution’s entry into force in 2014. However, this legislation has not seen the light of day to date, even though the specified constitutional period has been exceeded by more than ten years.
Salem adds that parliament has overshot the constitutional deadline by more than six years without issuing the law, despite passing other legislation, such as the Criminal Procedure Law, which was not tied to a specific constitutional deadline. This raises many questions and question marks about the reasons for the delay.
The cassation lawyer explains in his conversation with us that the constitutional legislator recognised the drawbacks and flaws of seconding judges to non-judicial bodies and considered it a “black hole” in the robe of justice and the Egyptian judicial apparatus, because of the risks it entails, most notably loss of impartiality, conflict of interest and violation of the principle of separation of powers, in addition to the dispersal of the seconded judge’s efforts, which negatively affects the course of justice and the rights of litigants.
Salem points out that the most prominent problem lies in the extent to which the seconded judge adheres to the judicial principles and rules of the body to which he belongs, compared with those imposed by the administrative body to which he is seconded, which makes it difficult to distinguish the dividing line between judicial commitment and the administrative function, with its customs and complex problems. Articles 186 and 239 of the constitution were firm on this matter, but the inaction of successive parliaments prevented the abolition of the secondment of judges to non-judicial bodies, which negatively affected the justice system.
The cassation lawyer set out the risks associated with seconding judges, explaining that the most prominent of them is the erosion of judicial independence: when a judge or legal adviser is seconded to a non-judicial body, his expertise is exposed to exploitation in contexts that may be subject to executive or political pressure, which weakens functional immunity, leads to conflict of interest and negatively affects the integrity of issuing rulings. In addition, there is the risk that the conflict of interest of external secondment leads to a situation in which it becomes difficult to separate the performance of judicial duty from administrative or advisory tasks within executive bodies, which may result in judges’ expertise being used in making administrative or political decisions, which distorts the concept of justice and weakens public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.
According to Salem, secondment to bodies outside the judicial structure is often accompanied by the granting of financial and career privileges exceeding those offered within judicial bodies, which creates a disparity in opportunities for promotion and professional development and undermines the principle of equality and transparency in the distribution of resources and opportunities within the state apparatus. Likewise, the people’s loss of confidence in the independence of the judiciary leads to the erosion of the image of justice, as the seconded judge may intervene in some cases in favour of the administrative body to which he is seconded. Justice is not limited to issuing rulings only; it also includes the feeling that the judicial system protects rights without political or administrative interference.
The cassation lawyer concluded his remarks by stressing the need for parliament to expedite the issuance of the law regulating the secondment of judges, in accordance with Article 239 of the constitution, and to reconsider the mechanisms of secondment in a way that ensures respect for legal and constitutional texts, safeguards the public interest and raises the level of justice in government performance. Keenness to protect the principles of transparency and equality is not merely an option, but an urgent necessity imposed by the requirements of the modern state and its constant efforts to reform its administrative system and guarantee equal opportunities for all citizens.
In the face of all these crises caused by the special secondment of judges, and the failure to implement the constitution by committing to abolish secondment in its current form and to set governing controls for it in accordance with the transitional article that mandated this, will the coming days see parliament intervene and oblige the relevant bodies to finalise the law to settle the matter? Will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Communications be questioned on the matter before parliament in implementation of the briefing requests? And will the money that the State Council’s “Fatwa and Legislation” ruled was not due be returned?
