The Judges Club has backed down from holding an extraordinary general assembly to discuss what it described in an internal statement as a “grave matter” affecting judicial affairs and the independence of the judiciary.
Instead, it announced on Wednesday its decision to postpone the assembly indefinitely following a meeting earlier in the day at the High Court of Justice between the Supreme Judicial Council — headed by Assem al-Ghayesh, president of the Court of Cassation — the chair and members of the Judges Club’s board and the heads of the club’s governorate branches.
Judicial sources said the move usurps judges’ say in the matter and forestalls their assembly. The general assembly had been called in the wake of new presidential directives, conveyed to senior judicial figures earlier this month, empowering the Military Academy, rather than judicial authorities, to make judicial appointments.
Applicants to entry-level judicial positions would be pooled and selected for mandatory training by the academy prior to hiring.
The decree sparked anger in judicial quarters, with the Judges Club announcing urgent consultations before deciding on next steps and calling for a general assembly to discuss “a grave matter” affecting the judiciary and its independence.
According to a statement on the Wednesday meeting obtained by Mada Masr, those attending discussed the recent controversy surrounding a leaked list of 2022 law graduates appointed to the Public Prosecution. They agreed to postpone the general assembly, while stressing that the Supreme Judicial Council is the body vested — under the Constitution, the law and international conventions — with authority to appoint and promote judges and prosecutors in a manner that “fully aligns with the president’s orientation, in his capacity as the head of the Supreme Council of Judicial Bodies and Authorities.”
The statement did not elaborate on the nature of this presidential orientation. It did, however, stress that “Egypt’s judges’ are a strength and support for his excellency in his pursuit of a state governed by law and institutions.” Procedures would soon begin for appointing new cohorts “on this basis, in a manner that would ensure an increase in the number of those admitted to the Public Prosecution,” the statement read.
A judicial source at the Court of Cassation described the statement as an attempt to contain judges’ anger while simultaneously complying with presidential directives — to which, the source added, no one objected. The Military Academy will assume responsibility for appointments and promotions “with the blessings of the judges and their club.”
A presiding appellate judge said the new presidential directives shift the power over appointments to the academy, placing judges on the same footing as other state employees and bringing to an end all talk of judicial independence.
The system in place for the last two years left the selection of candidates in the hands of the Supreme Judicial Council and other judicial bodies, who would refer applicants to the Military Academy for medical, psychological and fitness screenings as well as personal qualification assessments, and retain final authority over hiring decisions, according to the judge.
But the new direction, they said, requires applications to be submitted first through the academy, granting it de facto control over selections. “If the Supreme Judicial Council needs 700 assistant prosecutors, and the academy selects 700 law graduates it considers suitable based on its tests, what authority does the supreme council have to exclude some or all of those candidates?” they asked. This, the judge argued, reduces the council’s role in appointments to an “honorary” one.
According to the judge, the training courses judicial candidates have undergone in recent years — despite the lack of consensus among judges over their usefulness — did not constitute an encroachment on judicial independence, as they took place before the issuance of the presidential decree that finalizes appointment. But the academy’s control over appointments, and subsequently over promotions, would cultivate generations of judges “ready to obey orders,” a disposition inherently at odds with the nature of judicial work, they said.
“When we deliberate cases, the presiding judge may believe a life sentence is warranted, while I may see that acquittal is appropriate, and a third member might hold a different view. In such cases, the presiding judge abides by the majority opinion and has no power to impose his own,” the judge explained. A judge’s strength, they stressed, lies in the ability to take the decision, not in obedience.
Granting the Military Academy authority over the selection of new appointees has both political and economic objectives, the judge said. It would help produce a generation of judges unfamiliar with independence from the executive branch and inclined instead to align with it — echoing former President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s attempt to incorporate judges into the Arab Socialist Union, the political party he founded in 1962, which was followed by the dismissal of around 200 judges accused of opposing the July 23 revolution, in what became known as the “massacre of the judges.”
As for the economic objective, the judge pointed to the Military Academy’s financial returns from the process. These begin with a LE5,000 medical examination fee per applicant, followed by LE112,000-LE120.000 per candidate after completing the qualifying training course. Shifting the application process to the academy would bring in all the applicants from each graduating cohort, significantly boosting revenues.
Starting January 2025, the Military Academy began imposing mandatory fees — LE112,000 for men and LE120,000 for women — for training judicial appointees, five new hires confirmed to Mada Masr at the time. They noted that the appointment decisions by judicial bodies and authorities — the State Council, the Public Prosecution, the Administrative Prosecution and the State Lawsuits Authority — were only issued after the fees were paid.
From 2024, onward, new judicial candidates joined teachers, preachers, diplomats and other civil servants in being required to complete training courses at the Military Academy to qualify for appointment.
About the Author
