RE: Siko's posts Law327 Nov 2018 11:28
If the SCC ruled invalidating law 32 around June, it would be Ramadan and the beginning of summer holiday in Egypt where courts are kind of closed and normally reopen in Sept-Oct, and that's when I think our SAC case could restart, but I have no idea how long it could take. In ideal world you would think that the SAC had suspended the case when they collected all the necessary information for the ruling, so really it should not be long. The only thing I could think of that could cause a further delay would be if the members of the SAC changed by then as of course new ones may need time to look at the case again, but as we know this is the Egyptian legal system and nothing is logic when it comes to time.
Once again, all this would happen IF the SCC agreed with the commissioners regarding invalidating law 32, and to be honest I think they would because their report is too bad.
07.05.2017
There is no more info out other than what I found yesterday, so everyone would try to guess the reasons behind the SCC's decision.
At the end of the hearing yesterday, the SCC just announced the decision, there was no explanations or reasons, and as it sent it back to the commissioners, there was no date set for the next hearing.
As you all know, the commissioners report is advisory, the court could ignore it, as we have seen before in CEY case at the administrative court, also the SCC does not have to listen to arguments from both sides, the court would only listen to the lawyers if the court thought it was necessary.
My thought is that maybe the court saw some good legal points in the argument of the lawyer defending law 32, he raised two massive points (the right to file the case and the validity of the parliamentary approval).
The lawyer defending law 32, Mr Shawky Elsayed, is one of Egypt's top constitutional experts and he is used to appear in top cases, he even represented the owner of Madinaty. The commissioners report was so negative and anti law 32 and raised many points, so maybe the SCC found it too hard to ignore it and brush it aside, especially with law 32 not going down very well with many people.. so may be the court decided to refer the case back to the commissioners, with the points raised by Mr Elsayed, for them to have another look and consider his views. It would look much better and would be accepted easily by everyone if both could agree on the decision, whether it was to approve or not.
I personally was expecting the SCC to find law 32 unconstitutional and cancel it, especially after reading the commissioners report, but now and after yesterday's development, I'm not sure, because if that was the court intention and with the commissioners report recommending so, they could have easily adjourned for next meeting and ruled to cancel it, for them to send it back it could only mean that they are still thinking about it.
All this is just pure guessing and my personal thoughts, so I could be totally wrong. I will kee