15 April 2021
the 15th circuit of the State Council decided to postpone the appeal submitted by the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (ِAFTE) to the June 12, 2021 meeting, in order to examine the state commissioners’ body to respond and comment, in the case bearing number 81283 of 68 C dated March 23, 2014, which was commissioned by:
Professor Dr. Abdul-Jalil Mustafa, Dr. Hany Al-Husseini, and Dr. Khaled Samir.
AFTE demanded to pause the implementation of Resolution No. 2185 of 2014 – in preparation for its cancellation – regarding the formation of a committee to nominate university presidents and deans of colleges and institutes, organize their work, procedures, and conditions for candidacy and the subsequent decisions and the consequences thereof.
Notably, that a session was set to hear the case in November of 2014, and the court decided to refer the appeal to the State Commissioner, and another session was set on March 14, 2016, and AFTE attended and requested to correct the form of the case to include the new decision No. 5241 of 2016 amending the contested decision and arguing that the decision is unconstitutional.
The report of the Commissioners Authority was issued in May 2018 that the State Commissioners Authority had decided to cancel the contested decision, then the lawsuit returned to deliberation to view and respond to what was stated in the report of the State Commissioners Commission, and during the hearing of 3 July 2020 the plaintiffs requested a declaration of unconstitutionality, and the court complied and postponed the appeal to the August 8, 2020 hearing, to notify the litigants of the requests, and the hearing was postponed on October 3, 2020, so the appellants submitted evidence proving the declaration until the court decided to refer the appeal again to the State Commissioners Authority to prepare the case in the part related to pleading unconstitutional.
It is noteworthy that, the thirteenth circuit has been changed and since the October 3 session 2020, the fifteenth circuit has become the competent authority to hear the case, as the contested decision contradicts the most important principles established by the Egyptian constitution in the text of Article (21) that:
“The state guarantees the independence of universities and scientific and linguistic universities, the provision of university education in accordance with international quality standards, and it works to develop university education and guarantees free education in the state’s universities and institutes, in accordance with the law. The state commits to allocating a percentage of government spending for university education that is not less than 2% of the gross national product. It gradually rises in order to be in line with global averages. The state works to encourage the establishment of private non-profit universities, and the state is committed to ensuring the quality of education in private and private universities and its commitment to international quality standards, preparing its cadres of faculty members and researchers, and allocating a sufficient percentage of its revenues to develop the educational process. And research ”.
It is clear from the text of the article that the constitutional legislator wanted to stipulate the independence of universities and then the number of the most important rules that must be applied in relation to higher education, scientific research, and private universities. The truth of the matter is that independence here in its clear meaning is the independence of decision and management in a way that achieves the public good and the basic goal for which it was established Universities and the contested decision in our advocacy consecrates and codifies the idea of the domination of the administrative body and the executive authority over university life, so how can independence come if the administrative body controls all aspects of university life, including financial and administrative, in order to choose the administrative leaderships in Egyptian universities.
– The appellant decision also goes against what Article (9) of the Constitution stipulates:
“The state is committed to achieving equal opportunities for all citizens, without discrimination.”
It is difficult to achieve any equal opportunities in light of appointment decisions that do not contain any criteria, which opens the door to choices based on the private whims or favoritism of a particular person or to the satisfaction of the administrative body for some people but not others, and it may sometimes take the idea of punishment, thus depriving those who deserve access to One of the leading positions at the university.