Before 2006, the budgets of all judicial bodies in Egypt were under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice, which managed all financial and administrative matters for these entities. A unified system ensured equality among judges of the same rank, regardless of their affiliated judicial body. However, on June 27, 2006, the People’s Assembly approved an amendment to the Judicial Authority Law, granting each judicial body an independent budget overseen by its respective council, separate from the Ministry of Justice. Although this amendment aimed to enhance judicial independence, it opened the door to several unforeseen issues.
Under the new amendments, each judicial body, such as the State Council, the Administrative Prosecution Authority, the State Lawsuits Authority, and the Supreme Constitutional Court, received independent budgets supervised by their respective councils. However, the situation was different for the Supreme Judicial Council, which oversees four main judicial entities: the Public Prosecution, the primary courts, the courts of appeal, and the Court of Cassation. This arrangement created overlapping responsibilities, making it challenging to achieve financial equality among judges operating under the council’s umbrella.
Before these amendments, the Ministry of Justice managed the financial and administrative affairs of all judicial bodies, and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council was also the head of the Court of Cassation, allowing for unified and coordinated management. With the amendments in place, the Supreme Judicial Council, represented by the Court of Cassation, began overseeing these financially independent entities, creating challenges related to achieving financial parity among judges. Additionally, the position of the Secretary-General of the Supreme Judicial Council became affiliated with the Court of Cassation, even though no legal provision mandates this, adding a layer of complexity to the supervision of judicial operations in Egypt.
Don’t miss: Egypt: Asylum Bill Sparks Coordinated Digital Hostility Against Refugees
“Appeals Allowance” and Fueling Disputes
In 2017, the Egyptian Parliament approved a legal amendment requiring the Court of Cassation to directly examine cases presented through appeals, a role the court had not previously undertaken. These amendments added additional burdens on judges of the Court of Cassation, which many judges described as a new challenge to their responsibilities.
To address this challenge, the Supreme Judicial Council decided to grant judges of the Court of Cassation a special financial allowance, referred to as the “Appeals Allowance.” This sparked widespread controversy among judges of other judicial bodies, who perceived these allowances as favoring the judges of the Court of Cassation over their counterparts in primary and appellate courts, despite being of the same rank.
The crisis deepened when judges of the Court of Cassation were granted additional financial privileges, such as the “Illicit Gains Allowance,” the “Electoral Appeals Allowance,” and the “Allowance for Attending General Assemblies of Courts,” while judges of other courts were not granted similar benefits. This situation cast a shadow over financial equality across the judicial bodies, prompting debates about whether these amendments effectively promoted justice within the Egyptian judicial system.
Despite more than a decade passing since these amendments, discussions continue about the success of the concept of judicial budget independence in achieving the desired fairness within the judiciary. In June 2021, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi issued a decree to unify financial entitlements across all judicial ranks. However, this decree has yet to be implemented. In January 2024, the jurisdiction over criminal appeals was transferred from the Court of Cassation to appellate courts, without granting appellate judges any comparable financial allowances to those previously given to the judges of the Court of Cassation, exacerbating discontent among judges.
Don’t miss: Judicial Immunity in Egypt: A Shield or a Breeding Ground for Corruption?
The Court of Cassation
Amid escalating crises within Egypt’s judicial body, the presidents of the eight appellate courts nationwide submitted a unified memorandum to Justice Hosni Abdel Latif, President of the Supreme Judicial Council, calling for the implementation of the decision to unify financial entitlements. Additionally, several appellate court presidents formed a committee within judicial clubs to follow up on the request, emphasizing that “judicial independence must include fair budget distribution based on clear criteria.”
Several judges resorted to posting comments and satirical cartoons on private Facebook groups dedicated to judges, criticizing the current situation. However, the Judicial Inspection Department, led by Justice Wafai Abskharon, monitored these posts and referred dozens of judges to investigation with the approval of Minister of Justice Adnan Fangari. This move sparked widespread anger among judges, with some describing it as a “new judicial massacre,” reminiscent of the dismissal of 44 judges in May 2016 following their statement opposing the removal of the late President Mohamed Morsi.
The judges referred to investigation refused to appear before the Judicial Inspection Department, deeming the measure unjustified and asserting that their actions were limited to discussing an internal crisis in a private group. Meanwhile, judges are planning to call for an emergency general assembly at the Judges’ Club to take escalatory measures, especially as support for their position grows within the judiciary. Amid escalating tensions and continued disregard for their demands, the financial equality crisis within Egypt’s judicial bodies remains poised for further complexity, with calls to reconsider financial entitlement distribution policies and ensure justice for all members of the judiciary.
In an attempt to defuse the crisis, Minister of Justice Adnan Fangari met with the President of the Board of the Judges’ Club, Justice Abu Al-Hussein Fathy Qayed, Deputy President of the Court of Cassation, to discuss the crisis that erupted in the judiciary following the decision to refer dozens of judges—nearly 50 from appellate and primary courts—to investigation. The meeting concluded with the Minister promising to resolve the crisis after consulting with the Director of the Judicial Inspection Department, Justice Wafai Abskharon. The Minister asked the Judges’ Club President to mediate with the “crisis judges” to calm them down until the matter is resolved, urging them to refrain from escalating by holding an emergency general assembly or threatening strikes or sit-ins. The Minister, for his part, only promised to “freeze” current investigation procedures without officially closing them.
A second meeting to calm the crisis took place between the President of the Supreme Judicial Council and the President of the Court of Cassation, Justice Hosni Abdel Latif, and a delegation of appellate and primary court presidents to address the crisis.
According to a senior judge at the Cairo Court of Appeals, who requested anonymity and was among the delegation attending the meeting, the discussions did not touch on the crisis of judges referred for investigation. The President of the Supreme Judicial Council asked to postpone addressing the matter until the Minister of Justice made a final decision regarding the investigations being conducted by the Judicial Inspection Department. The meeting focused solely on presenting financial crises and the demands that sparked the crisis. The President promised to examine and study the matter, aiming to resolve it and ensure justice and equality in salaries per the President’s decision. However, he requested patience given the current economic conditions and regional repercussions affecting Egypt. He described the demands as “sectoral” and urged waiting until the situation stabilizes and calms down.
Don’t miss: Tarek Nour: From Allegations to Media Power
Referring Judges to Investigation
The President of the Justice Support Foundation at the Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, Nasser Amin, told Zawia3 that referring judges to investigation must be addressed immediately. He stated that it is unacceptable for the response to judges’ complaints about unifying financial entitlements among judicial peers to be referral to investigation. Instead, their grievances should have been heard and resolved.
Amin added that this represents a blatant violation of judicial independence and contravenes Egypt’s international obligations and treaties. It is a clear breach of the rights afforded to judges under the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1985, in which the Egyptian government participated in drafting and signing. He explained that Article 8 of these principles states: “In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly. However, in exercising these rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.” What has occurred contradicts this article.
Ashraf Mustafa, a former judge at the Cairo Court of Appeals, also emphasized that there is discrimination violating the principle of equality, as decreed by the President of the Republic, among judges of the same rank. He criticized the Minister of Justice’s decision, which has inflamed the judiciary by referring judges to investigation for discussing a matter contrary to a presidential decree, instead of engaging in dialogue to resolve the crisis and implement the decree.
Mustafa pointed out that the Supreme Judicial Council has issued decisions granting privileges, especially financial ones, to members of the Court of Cassation, whose number does not exceed 900, in the form of various allowances. Meanwhile, judges of the same rank in the primary and appellate courts, numbering over 12,000, have not received these privileges.
He added, “Salaries for judges of the Court of Cassation reach approximately 80,000 EGP, while their counterparts in the appellate and primary courts earn no more than 50,000 EGP, with most earning between 40,000 and 45,000 EGP. Members of the Supreme Judicial Council also receive higher salaries than judges of the Court of Cassation due to additional allowances, including those for interviewing law school graduates for new prosecutor appointments.”
Mustafa continued, “The allowances granted to Court of Cassation judges for additional work have been eliminated and reassigned to appellate judges. However, the financial privileges for Court of Cassation judges remain intact, even though their functional responsibilities have shifted to the appellate courts.” He also noted that the Supreme Judicial Council has issued decisions on distributing these privileges that contradict legal provisions.
He highlighted the existence of allowances such as “extra session allowances” granted to Court of Cassation judges, while appellate judges, despite performing similar additional duties, do not receive the same allowances.
Mustafa further stated that the crisis is not limited to privileges but extends to a lack of transparency and fairness in their distribution, creating widespread discontent within judicial circles. He emphasized that much of the current crisis stems from the absence of any meaningful action by the Supreme Judicial Council to standardize financial privileges for all judges of the same rank. Instead of addressing the issue, the council’s response has been delayed and erratic, exacerbating the crisis.
Similarly, human rights lawyer Saleh Hassan—an attorney at the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Constitutional Court, a former legal advisor to the Independence of Ain Shams University Movement, and legal representative for several judges and university professors in disciplinary cases—told Zawia3 that the judges referred to investigation committed no violations of the Judicial Authority Law warranting such actions.
He explained that the judges posted on private judicial groups dedicated to discussing judicial matters and their crises. They raised a chronic issue affecting judges and undermining the fundamental principle of equality and justice. He emphasized that their discussions were purely judicial and did not touch on any political issues or other crises.
Hassan added, “These judicial groups are restricted to members of judicial bodies, whether from the public prosecution, primary courts, appellate courts, or the Court of Cassation. Membership is supervised by judges and granted only after verifying the applicant’s identity through their judicial ID and phone number. This ensures that these groups remain private and not accessible to the public, meaning that judges discussed their crises confidentially and within legal boundaries without making them public.”
A member of the Judges’ Club Board of Directors, who requested anonymity, affirmed to Zawia3 that the board understands the position of the judges referred to investigation, stating that their stance represents the majority opinion among judges. He added that the club supports these judges in their current crisis and has conducted discussions with the Minister of Justice to resolve the matter. These discussions are ongoing, along with efforts to communicate with the Supreme Judicial Council to quell the unrest within the judiciary caused by these referrals.
Zawia3 attempted to contact Minister of Justice Adnan Fangari for comment on the crisis, but he declined to meet or discuss the matter.
Don’t miss: How Did Corruption Infiltrate the Grand Egyptian Museum?
Omar Marwan and the Root of the Crisis
Zawia3 spoke with several judges who criticized former Minister of Justice and current Director of the Presidential Office, Counselor Omar Marwan, asserting that he is at the core of the ongoing crisis. They pointed to his unprecedented attendance at the Supreme Judicial Council meeting despite no longer being an active judge.
According to judges, who requested anonymity, “It has been rumored within judicial circles that Counselor Omar Marwan suggested to the current Minister of Justice, Adnan Fanjary, that the judges who posted on closed judicial groups should be referred to the Judicial Inspection Department for investigation. Believing this to be a presidential directive, the minister complied and issued the referral decision.”
Zawia3 attemOmar Marwan for comment on these allegations, but he did not respond before this report was published.pted to contact Counselor
Judges have also criticized Counselor Omar Marwan’s presence at the Supreme Judicial Council meeting held on October 1, 2024. This meeting, chaired by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in his capacity as head of the Supreme Judicial Council, was criticized as unprecedented. It has traditionally been attended only by the heads of judicial bodies and the current Minister of Justice; no former Minister of Justice or Director of the Presidential Office had ever attended before.
From information gathered through several judges involved in the crisis, some senior judges proposed solutions to resolve the issue before it escalates further. Current demands include rotating the presidency of the Supreme Judicial Council between the Court of Cassation and the Cairo Court of Appeals, as the latter is historically older. Judges have also stressed the need to implement the June 2021 presidential decree unifying financial entitlements for judges of equivalent ranks across judicial bodies.
Other proposals include returning the budget for all judicial bodies to the Ministry of Justice, as it was prior to 2006, to ensure equality and prevent favoritism. Lastly, they called for amending the Judicial Authority Law to activate the role of the Council of Court of Appeals Presidents as an honorary council overseeing the budget for appellate judges nationwide. This would require legislative amendments.
In a bid for temporary calm while these proposals are being studied, some judges suggested appointing the Secretary-General of the Supreme Judicial Council from the appellate courts rather than the Court of Cassation. This suggestion is based on the rationale that financial matters for judicial bodies fall under the Secretary-General’s responsibilities, justifying the need for representation from the appellate courts in this role. Additionally, they proposed appointing the Director of the Cassation Prosecution from appellate courts, in accordance with the legal provision allowing judges from either the Court of Cassation or appellate courts to assume this position—a provision that has yet to be implemented, as appointments have so far been exclusive to the Court of Cassation.
The demands of senior judges underscore the need to restore trust between the judiciary and the state by taking practical steps to ensure justice and uphold the law equally for all without discrimination. These demands align with ongoing efforts by the Judges’ Club and discussions with higher authorities aimed at safeguarding judicial independence and stability.
By prioritizing transparency and equality in addressing crises within the judicial system, the state can pave the way for progress. An independent judiciary remains the cornerstone of justice and the rule of law, and it must remain a non-negotiable national priority.