Last Update 20:57
Tuesday, 12 November 2019

Why we withdrew from SCAF advisory council: FJP

SCAF wants power over elected parliament which would circumvent will of the people, says senior figure in Muslim Brotherhood's FJP

Ahram Online, Friday 9 Dec 2011
FJP
Freedom and Justice Party Logo
Share/Bookmark
Views: 2693
Share/Bookmark
Views: 2693

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) has published comments by a prominent member explaining its decision to withdraw from the military junta’s (SCAF) proposed advisory council.

Comments by the FJP’s assistant secretary in Cairo, Amr Zaky, published on the party’s website on Friday, suggest the decision was made after SCAF amended the advisory council’s powers.

According to Zaky, the powers of the council were amended to allow SCAF to infringe upon the powers of the future parliament when appointing the provisional assembly responsible for drafting Egypt’s new constitution. He added that this decision was considered a circumvention of the people’s will by the FJP and thus forced it to withdraw from the council.

The FJP announced on Thursday that it had withdrawn its representatives – FJP Chairman Mohamed Morsi and FJP Secretary-General Mohamed Yassin – from the council, but the party spokesman declined to provide reasons for the abrupt decision. However, the party’s move came several hours after SCAF’s Major General Mukhtar El-Mulla told journalists the ruling junta would have the final say on the constitution.

Mulla hinted that the advisory council would coordinate with the incoming parliament in order to make the provisional assembly, which will draft the constitutional, more representative and limit the impact of Islamist success at the polls.

Short link:

 

Email
 
Name
 
Comment's
Title
 
Comment
Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.
2



Modern_Humaniora
09-12-2011 10:50pm
0-
0+
For 80 years
For 80 years FJP has proven that they are a political movement which not are using violence as a political method. FJP has proven that they are not going to by force impose any view on anyone. And they have always been steadyfast in their position - for 80 years. In spite of all that pain they have suffered. How can you possible distrust such a movement? The Brotherhood has proven that they are a political movement of highest order.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
1



Bud Carlson
09-12-2011 10:01pm
0-
1+
Withdrawal from SCAF advisory council - What next?
Everything that the Muslim Brotherhood and all other freedom and justice seeking people have worked for is at a critical point. There are two forces working against the free will of the people: The entrenched and favorite status of the military and the fear that a new constitution might allow "Sharia" to become the law of the land. I want the Muslim Brotherhood to succeed. They deserve their rightful representation, and I'm afraid that in withdrawing from the advisory council, the work on the constitution will become a divisive force and not a unifying force. Over 200 years ago the US constitution (in my country) reflected profound divisions, especially slavery, which many states wanted to preserve. However, in the end, it was ratified by unanimous vote of all states. To be ratified it wisely ignored all divisive issues and stressed only the organizational aspects, governance issues and relationships to the states. It wasn't until several years later that issues like freedoms o
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Latest

© 2010 Ahram Online.