32
LCHR challenges the unconstitutionality of the presidential decree regarding the privatisation of the public institution of drinking water and sewerage
LCHR’s lawyers challenges the unconstitutionality of the presidential decree no. 135 of 2004 issued on 27/4/2004 regarding the transformation of the public institution of drinking water and sewerage into a holding company before the administrative court. The center highlighted the negative impacts of such decree throughout its issuance asserting that it is considered as a direct violation against citizens’ rights to services (drinking water and health care) guaranteed by the state according to the Egyptian constitution.
The challenge emphasizes on the unconstitutionality of the mentioned decree that contradicts with the constitution’s articles [no. 33, 24, 23, 17, 16, 4,1]. The center’s challenge depends on the following points:-
First; violating articles (no. 1 and 4) of the constitution
Article no. 1 of the constitution stipulates, “A.R.E is a socialistic democratic country whose system depends on the alliance of the populace labour forces …”. Article no. 4 pf the constitution stipulates, “the economic system of A.R.E is socialistic democratic system that depends on sufficiency and justice that hinders the exploitation, remove differences between incomes and guarantee justice of distribution of public costs and burdens”. It means that the system of A.R.E is socialistic and not capitalistic.
According to the constitution and the legal regulations, the public institution of drinking water and sewerage couldn’t be either privatised or sold. Therefore, the mentioned decree transforms the legal form of the institution into a holding company that could be privatised and sold. Such transformation violates the system stipulated by the constitution and leads to widening the gap between incomes that it is expected that the company will control the price of the drinking water (a basic need that the citizen couldn’t live without).
Second; violating articles (no. 16 and 17) of the constitution
Article no. 16 stipulates, “The state secures social, health and cultural services especially in the countryside in order to improve its conditions”. Article no. 17 stipulates, “the state secures services of social and health insurances and pensions for incapacity and unemployment ….”. it means that the state should guarantee presenting these services for all citizen. On the contrary, transforming the public institution of drinking water and sewerage into a holding company that will be responsible for distributing and selling the drinking water contravenes the state’ commitment towards providing the populace with clean and health water. Moreover, this decree is an initiative procedure for privatizing and selling the company to individuals that violates the constitution that obliges the sate to provide the infrastructure services
Third; violating articles (no. 23, 24 and 33) of the constitution
Article no. 23 stipulates, “The national economy is organized according to the inclusive development plan that guarantees the increase of national income, justice of distribution, promoting living conditions, eliminating the unemployment, increasing work opportunities, connecting wag with production and securing the minimum standard of wages”.
Article no. 24 stipulates, “The people controls all production tools and directs its superabundance according to the development plan ratified by the state”. Moreover, article no. 33 stipulates that the public possession could be protected and supported by the populace that is considered as a prop for the country, base for the socialist system and source for the people’s luxury.
While the public institution for water and sewerage is owned by the state “public possession” and it is a source for improving living conditions of the populace through supplying clean water for all citizens. On the other hand, the challenged legalization transforms the institution into a holding company is just an initiative procedure for privatizing the institution that violates the stipulated protection of the public capital. It means that the institution of water in all countries is under the supervision and control of the states that protects it from monopolization or exploitation especially that such institution is responsible for presenting the basic service “water” for all citizens; on the contrary, companies are concerned with nothing but profits and numbers that will violate the right of the populace in water.
Forth; corruption of using the legislative authority
The challenged decree is a result for corruption of using the legislative authority because the objective of any legalization is supposed to be the public benefit that has to be achieved through the law. Measuring such corruption could be through subjective and objective criterions (subjective; is related with tends and purposes that the legislative authority means to achieve- objective; the public benefit that the legislator has to be concerned with through issuing legalizations). About the challenged decree, it alleges that it will promote the efficiency of the institution by securing additional resources that contribute to supplying the water and sewerage in the all country but the real objective of such transformation is to privatize and sell the company.
Therefore, the center presented its challenge against the mentioned decree. Moreover, LCHR asks the President, the head of the people’s assembly, minister of justice to stop the implementation of the decree. The center calls the civil society associations in Egypt to work for deleting the decree in order to protect the people’s rights in clean drinking water, health care and humane life.