Ahmed M. ElNahhas -
Firenze, June 14th 2017.
Recently, several events
have caused a growing conflict among a good part of the Egyptian population;
between cheering supporters and shouting opponents. I have noticed that in most
cases, each group has kept sustaining his stand emotionally, while very few
have chosen to debate the merit of each issue rationally; thus both clans have
been willingly creating that insuperable abyss of unreason which will be dividing
them for God knows how long.
The events in question
are:
I.
The
signature of an agreement by which Egypt’s government conceded the Red Sea
Islands of Tiran and Sanafir to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
II.
The
Maritime Boundary Delineation Treaty signed between Egypt, Israel and Cyprus.
The first has triggered
an overwhelming political, juridical, demagogic and intellectual commotion, which
hasn’t settled yet. Instead the second couldn’t cause the same effect; even
though a Maritime Boundary Delineation by definition has
substantial strategic, economic and environmental implications, as it also confronts its signatories’ disputable ‘Restrictive vs.
Expansive’ aspects of their Territorial Waters, Contiguous Zones and Exclusive
Economic Zones. As such, it bounds areas of exclusive national
rights over mineral and biological resources.
From a strictly personal
point of view, my problem is that both treaties are, or should have been,
subordinate to constitutional rulings; which wasn’t the case in any; since none
of them did pass first by the Parliament for reviewing and rectifying before
denying or ratifying, as stipulated by the Constitution, simply because such
treaties consist of a significant “strategic, economic and environmental
implications”!
All Legal Dictionaries
and studies have agreed to define the term ‘Constitution’ as:
“The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes
the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a
society must conform; by describing the organisation
of the government regulation, distribution, and limitations on the functions of
its’ different departments; and by
prescribing the extent and manner by which its sovereign powers will exercise
their functions. As such, it is a legislative charter by which a government
derives its authority to act.”
One of the cardinal
principals of any constitution reads: “In
a truly constitutional form of government, public officials are subject to
constitutional rules and provisions; they may not violate them without
punishment.”
Having said that, allow
me to remind you of the following confirmed facts:
a)
Egypt’s
Supreme Administrative Court did issue a final ruling confirming Egypt’s
sovereignty over the Red Sea Islands Tiran and Sanafir, motivating the sentence
by “the
lack of adequate evidence supporting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s claim to the
islands, therefore the Executive branch of the Egyptian government does not
have the administrative authority to cede the territory to Saudi Arabia”.
b)
The
Court of Administrative Justice ruled that “Prime Minister Sherif Ismail violated the
Constitution by signing the agreement” and nullified his signature.
So, and in my
personal opinion, Strategic National Security is no reason to breach the
Constitution. I think that each of the treaties could have been addressed in
Parliament before ratifying without jeopardising the secrecy of their true intents. Intents which I
presume also vital for the welfare of the Egyptian people.
May Allah grant our
people the wisdom and courage to cross that abyss.. May Allah save the Egyptians
from drowning in that abyss of unreason.. May Allah bless Egypt.
Pass On The Word.
NB: Did any of
the above mentioned treaties include similar clause?
“Each
Party shall notify the other of the completion of its constitutional procedures
necessary to bring this Agreement into force. This Agreement shall enter into
force on the day of receipt of the later of those notifications.”
No comments:
Post a Comment