15
Impeachment of LCHR before Administrative Court
The lawyer of Land Centre for Human Rights (LCHR) filed an impeachment lawsuit before the administrative court under the number against the resolution of the ministry of social affairs issued on 10th of June 2003 declaring that the state security authority does not agree to register the organisation of Land Sons for Human Rights.
It is to be mentioned that this declaration was empty of any reasons for refusal from security authorities. Thus LCHR presented an impeachment with an urgent demand to stop the impeached administrative resolution that refuses to register the organisation of Land Sons for Human Rights due to the objection of the security authority, and to stop all the resulted effects.
As for cancelling all the resulted effects, the impeachment demanded a compensation for wasting the time, activities and money of the organisation away from its purposes that are mentioned in its main system, in addition for all financial and ethical harms to the organisation and its establishers.
LCHR mentioned the following reasons for impeaching the resolution:
The first reason: contradicting the law and wrong implementation. Law of NGOs no. 84/2002 does not include the agreement of security authorities as a condition for registering of organisations, and the reason of security authority refusal have not been mentioned in any other cases for refusal. Implementation rules for the same law does not have any text that prevents registration, except for paragraph 28 that says, “except for the cases mentioned in paragraph 11 of the law and paragraph 24 of these implementation rules, meant administrative authority is committed to register the briefing of the main system of the organisation in the special registry within 60 days starting from the day when the representative of the organisation presented his full demand for registration”.
The organisation’s papers did not have any of the illegal terms mentioned in paragraph 11 in the law and paragraph 24 of the implementation rules. . so the administrative authority is committed, according to paragraph 6 of the law, to registering the briefing of the main system of the organisation in the special registry prepared for that within 60 days from the date of demand for registration.
The administrative authority had to register the organisation in the meant registry and tell the impeachers the reasons for refusal so that they can eliminate these reasons. In case the establishers refuse to eliminate the refusal reasons, the authority can go to the legal committee. As the authority has not done that, it contradicted the law by issuing that resolution.
The second reason: the resolution was empty of reasons. NGOs law, in its paragraphs no. 6 and 8, says that it is a must to mention the reasons of refusing to register the organisation. The refusal declaration was empty of reasons, and thus it is an illegal and corrupt declaration.
It was mentioned in the impeachment that the impeached declaration was issued under the effects of the bad law of 32/1964 and its implementation rules on the employees and administrators in ministry of social affairs. The fourth paragraph in that law says, “Social affairs authorities have to send a copy of the papers of the organisations that demand registration or reformation of its current system to the meant security authority, meant union and the meant administrative authorities that follows the meant ministries in order to know their opinions.
For an unknown reason and in spite of eliminating that paragraph in law 84/2002, the ministry of social affairs still sends the papers to security authorities and follows their opinions that are prejudiced, bias and fanatic. The ministry ignores the fact that the new law liberated it from that constraint that the legislators considered one of the main factors that pushed voluntarily activities to stop.
The impeached declaration cannot be in any way for the sake of public interest or the administrative authority that issued that declaration or the one that recommended that declaration (security authorities) would have mentioned the reasons for it. The real reason for that declaration is the desire of the administrative authority to hinder the work of the organisation for the longest possible period, and to restrict the voluntarily work in a narrow circle that copes with specific desires and purposes.
The declaration as a whole gives the feeling of suspicion and accusation and is dominated by the spirit of conspiracy against NGOs and their members who are not desired by the administrative authority for no reason but its desire to generally dominate voluntarily work through bureaucratic administrations that are against democracy and development in our country.
As this is the case, the impeached declaration is illegal and shows an abuse of authority for illegal purposes.
The mentioned declaration also contradicts with the constitution and the international treaties and conventions signed by Arab Republic of Egypt.
The declaration represents a clear contradiction to the constitutional principle that declares that the state is committed to provide a proper minimum of democracy for the filed of human rights and the constitutional court assured that principle based on constitution.
The constitutional court said in its judgement, “The constitution mentions in its first paragraph that the Arab Republic of Egypt is a country of a democratic communist system. The third paragraph mentions that the supreme authority is for the people that practices its authority and preserves it according to the way mentioned in the constitution. The fourth paragraph says that the economic basis of Arab Republic of Egypt is the democratic communist system.)
These paragraphs are related to paragraph no. 65 in the constitution that says that in the field of citizens’ rights and their basic freedoms, the legal rule is that the legal country is above the law and committed to it according to democratic countries.
The declaration contradicted paragraph no. 20 of the international declaration for human rights that says:
§ Every person has got the right to join peaceful meetings and organisations.
§ It is forbidden to force any one to join some organisation.
The declaration also contradicts paragraph no. 22 in the international convention on civil rights that declares:
§ Every one has got the right to form organisations with others, including forming of syndicates and joining them for the sake of protecting his rights.
§ It is forbidden to put any constraints on that right except for those enshrined in law and represent necessary measures for preserving national security, public safety, public discipline, public health, public ethics or the rights of others and their freedoms. This paragraph does not mean a complete freedom for army and police to implement these legal constraints.
The impeachment of LCHR declares that this declaration of refusal is a trespassing on the judicial authority, because the administrative authority does not have the right to interfere in the work of the judicial authority. In case of interference, any resolutions based on that interference are illegal and cannot be considered active in sixty days and may be cancelled at any time.
The impeached decision of the Social Affairs violates the law that the role of the Social Affairs is limited to examine the fulfilment of association’s conditions and non-existence of the prohibitions of article no. 11. Even if the Social Affairs aims to refuse registration of an association, it has to register it and revealing the refusal reasons and asking for amendments. When the registered association doesn’t amend the defeats of its system, the Social Affairs has to ask the judicial authority to close the association. Consequently, the decision of the Social Affairs is completely illegal.
((The appeal reveals the authority anger or the realistic authorization to violate the legal rules))
The second article of the executive code of the law issued by the ministerial decision no. 178/2002 determines the administrative authority to be the ministry of social affairs. Moreover, the first article mentions that the administrative authority that implements the civil associations’ law comprises five administrations from the ministry of social affairs (each administration applies determined articles). About the role the security institution, it is advisory role that may be ignored by the Social Affairs that has the main speciality to issue registration decisions. It seems that the Social Affairs becomes just a postman that deliver messages between the associations and security institutions.
((The impeached decision imposes undemocratic methodology; to have permission to practise your constitutional rights))
This undemocratic system “permission” restricts the individual freedoms that the man couldn’t practise his rights and freedoms without permission from the executive authority. About notification system, it provides the individual with more freedom concerning his behaviour, and then he will be asked or punished for the harms that he causes. This system is more democratic that gives more freedoms for the person, who will be investigated when he abuses these freedoms. According to the notification system, the man has to inform the specialized authorities about his trends to practise any activity; on the other hand, the authority has no right to prevent him.
Finally, the centre calls all national and democratic forces and civil society organizations to be in solidarity to face such violation in order to protect the freedom and independence of civil society.