The ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces ‎‎(SCAF)’s newly formed advisory council is scheduled to ‎convene for the first time on Sunday. The meeting, ‎expected to include the advisory council’s 30 appointed ‎members, will take place amid considerable controversy ‎over the new body’s precise role and authority.‎

Only hours before the advisory council’s first scheduled ‎meeting, SCAF member Major-General Mamdouh Shahin ‎denied on national television what has been rumoured for ‎days – namely, that the council would play a role in ‎picking the members of the assembly that would be ‎mandated with drafting a new national constitution. ‎

On Sunday morning, Shahin assured the public that the ‎only body with authority to appoint constituent assembly ‎members would be the incoming parliament. He also ‎pointed out that parliament’s ten appointed members ‎would not have this authority.‎

The idea of establishing an advisory council to “assist” ‎the SCAF was first floated following last month’s clashes ‎between security forces and anti-SCAF protesters in ‎which more than 40 of the latter were killed. The incident ‎triggered an enormous demonstration in Cairo’s Tahrir ‎Square on 19 November to demand an end to military ‎rule.‎

The proposed council was initially presented as one that ‎would include revolutionary political figures to “advise” the ‎SCAF until executive power could be handed over to an ‎elected, civilian authority. Shortly after the initial proposal, ‎however, statements by SCAF spokesmen suggested the ‎advisory council might aspire to more than just an ‎advisory role.‎

Days after the advisory council was announced, the ‎SCAF’s Major-General Mukhtar Mulla hinted to journalists ‎that the council would have the authority to “coordinate” ‎with the incoming parliament in choosing members of the ‎constituent assembly – an authority originally reserved for ‎parliament alone. ‎

Mulla asserted that this would make the constituent ‎assembly “more representative” and limit the impact of ‎recent Islamist electoral successes. Many critics, ‎however, took Mulla’s words as meaning that the military ‎would maintain effective control over the constitution-‎drafting process.‎

One day after Mulla’s statements, the Muslim ‎Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) withdrew ‎its representatives – Mohamed Morsi and Mohamed ‎Yassin – from the proposed council. According to FJP ‎member Amr Zaky, their withdrawal came as a response ‎to the new, extra authorities granted the advisory council. ‎

Zaky explained that the advisory council’s authorities had ‎been amended to allow the SCAF to infringe upon powers ‎that should only belong to the incoming parliament. Such ‎a move, he asserted, would be widely considered “a ‎circumvention of the people’s will.”‎

Islamist thinker and advisory council member Selim El-‎Awa, however, challenged this assertion, noting that the ‎SCAF would soon release an official statement refuting ‎such claims – a contention later confirmed by Shahin’s ‎televised statements on Sunday.‎

But El-Awa differentiated between the notion of choosing ‎constituent assembly members and simply laying out the ‎criteria for their selection. The advisory council, he ‎insisted, would merely set the criteria by which ‎parliamentarians would choose constituent assembly ‎members.‎

Several political figures, meanwhile, have turned down ‎offers to join the nascent advisory council, arguing that ‎the council only serves to lend legitimacy to the ruling ‎SCAF. ‎

Ahmed Bahaa El-Din Shaaban, member of both the ‎National Association for Change reform movement and ‎Egypt’s Socialist Party, issued a statement late last week ‎in which he cited eight reasons why political figures ‎should not join the advisory council.‎

According to Shaaban, the SCAF is a “counter-‎revolutionary” force “responsible for all those killed ‎and injured during the past months.” Shaaban stressed ‎that joining the advisory council would only serve to ‎legitimise the SCAF and thus prolong military rule.‎

Along with Shaaban, several other young revolutionary ‎activists – citing similar reasons – have also turned down ‎formal offers to join the council.