Rights lawyer Khaled Ali said all scenarios are possible in the court hearing of the appeal against Egypt's Administrative Court ruling regarding the Saudi-Egypt border demarcation agreement. (File Photo: Reuters)
All scenarios are possible during Sunday's High Administrative Court session to look into the government's appeal of the lower court's decision last week to void April's maritime border demarcation agreement with Saudi Arabia, Rights lawyer Khaled Ali, who co-filed the original case, told Ahram Arabic website.
The Administrative Court had ruled last Tuesday that the Saudi-Egyptian agreement was void, putting Red Sea islands Tiran and Sanafir under Egyptian sovereignty.
According to Egyptian law, the ruling is to be respected until a decision on the appeal is issued.
During Sunday's session, the court will hear the government's request to stay the ruling, Ali said, adding that he plans during the session to ask for the reasons behind the government's motion.
Ali added that that the court may decide to stay execution of the ruling and send the case to the State Council's Commissioners Committee to prepare a report before issuing a final ruling.
Ali noted that the highest court in the country, the Supreme Administrative Court may also refer the case to the Supreme Constitutional Court.
The lawyer added that he hopes that if the case reaches the Supreme Administrative Court, the lower court's decision to keep Tian and Sanafir Egyptian would be upheld.
State Lawsuits Authority's Assistant Secretary General Abdelsalam Mahmoud declined to comment on details related to Sunday's hearing, saying the Authority will issue a statement following the session, Ahram Arabic reported.
A 'sovereignty' case
Ali rejected the government's argument that the Administrative Court is not responsible for cases related to sovereignty, adding that there is no definition of sovereignty in the law.
He said the case is a first, as never before has executive power transferred Egyptian land to the sovereignty of another nation.
"The executive power must first provide evidence that the land is not Egyptian, so that they prove they are not violating the constitution, which they have not done," Ali said, adding that in the case he filed, 23 documents were provided to show Tiran and Sanafir islands are Egyptian, making the agreement unconstitutional.
The State Lawsuits Authority's assistant secretary general Mahmoud told Ahram Arabic that sovereignty has a clear definition in the law and the judiciary does not have the right to look into sovereignty cases, leading the Authority to defend the case on procedural premises.
The Authority was sure the court would not tackle the core of the lawsuit – the argument that the islands are Egyptian - and was surprised when it did, Mahmoud added, saying that the parliament is the solely responsible to decide upon the agreement's validity.
Ali objected to the fact that the government refused to provide a copy of the agreement to the Court on the premise that it is a sensitive issue of national security, adding that the agreement was discussed by the Saudi Shura Council on April 25 and in the Israeli Knesset.
"All this taken into consideration, presenting the matter to those who own it [the Egyptian people], is what contradicts national security? Would it also contradict national security to present it to the State Council to study it?" says Ali.
"The State Lawsuits Authority relied on denying the reality [of the case] without presenting any documents, and refused the Court's request to subpoena a version of the agreement and of the reports of the committee meetings between Egypt and Saudi Arabia [regarding maritime demarcation]," said Ali.
Ali called the Authority's strategy "wrong."
"[The State Lawsuits Authority] only defended their case in the media [and] without documents, which is why I expect this strategy will change before the Supreme Administrative Court," Ali said.
Short link: