الموقف المصري

– From a short time ago, the House of Representatives was discussing a request from the Attorney General to lift the immunity of Representative Tamer Abdel Qader (Member of the Council from the New Valley Governorate), in order to complete the investigations into Case No. 2033 of 2021 (Supreme State Security), in which he is accused of requesting a financial bribe From a citizen, according to the investigations and records of the Administrative Control Authority.
The parliament’s discussions ended with a decision rejecting the MP’s immunity request, claiming that it was a malicious communication, and therefore the parliament, by majority, rejected the matter.
– What exactly happened? What are the details of the topic? What does it mean in Egypt? This is what we will talk about in the current post.
*******
What are the details of the topic?
On Monday, October 18, the House of Representatives’ plenary session was discussing a request from the Attorney General to lift the immunity of MP Tamer Abdel Qader, Undersecretary of the Media Committee, because of his accusation in a corruption case.
The request was submitted by the Public Prosecution Office to the President of the Council, who in turn transferred it to the Legislative Affairs Committee to discuss the Attorney General’s request and make a report on it, and are the procedures correct in order to lift the immunity or not.
– Deputy of the Legislative Committee, Ihab Al-Tamawi, said that the committee listened to more than 11 recordings in the case for which the prosecution asked to lift the MP’s immunity, and the case, according to many sources, is a case of bribery involving MP Tamer.
– But the committee’s representative said that they believed that it was “a malicious communication” and that it targeted the deputy, and there is no evidence other than that two of the 11 registrations belong to MP Tamer, but there is no specific evidence against him, and the registration belonged to a person named “Tamer Bey.”
– Many MPs defended MP Tamer and that he is certain that he is a parliamentarian, and they defended him, with the exception of very few voices, who said that we cannot say the communication is malicious, because it is unreasonable that the administrative control and the Public Prosecution target the MP, in addition to the person who The report was submitted to the Public Prosecution Office regarding the case. I am talking about 11 names, including Representative Tamer, and therefore the issue is not subject to any personal targeting.
– Also, Representative Atef Maghawry asked the accused representative that he submit a request himself to lift his immunity, and that he defends himself and his name before the prosecution and proves his innocence, and that it is inappropriate that the council puts itself in the place of the prosecution and the judiciary and says so-and-so is convicted and so-and-so no.
– But the vast majority were defending the representative, such as Ashraf Rashad, who said that it is inappropriate to register a deputy without the parliament’s permission, and that they confirmed their innocence after investigating the recordings and that the report was malicious.
– Representative “Ahmed al-Sharqawi” also joined the defenders of Representative Tamer, and said that the committee confirmed the malicious suspicion, and that he was in error in the procedures due to the registration of the deputy, and suggested making an amendment in the charter so that the registration is done by the prosecution of one of the council members to verify the matter after Notifying the head of the council confidentially, but no one was interested in discussing this proposal.
– For some reason, I did not know that the media knew anything about this issue or that it was raised in newspapers and websites before it. It was very discreet about the issue and the name of the deputy whose immunity is required to be lifted, and there is information that hesitates in the political community that he is not the first deputy to require lifting his immunity, and this happened. Also in the Senate and the same measures were taken.
We mention here that the previous parliament in 2016 refused a request submitted by the Attorney General at the time, Nabil Sadek, to authorize the lifting of immunity from Representative Ashraf El-Araby, the former head of the Tax Authority, to take criminal measures against him in Case No. 629 of 2012, the inventory of higher public funds. The refusal came after listening to the report of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee.
******
What do we see from all of this?
The idea of ​​judicial immunity granted to members of parliament is an idea or a procedure to protect deputies in expressing their opinion, and that they exercise their oversight functions over governments and ministers with reassurance, because it is not logical that I have the right to attack and ask and interrogate the official, and in the possibility that he will punish me for doing my part by any malicious means.
– But in any case, the idea of ​​immunity here turns into a complete protection from accountability for MPs who have disputes with the government, and therefore this is not a green light for anyone who exercises their work freely, including illegal acts, because they have immunity, and therefore for them to be held accountable the issue will be difficult and need procedures a lot.
– In the same non-democratic countries, immunity turns into a fictitious paper if it is about an opposition deputy who plays his real role in oversight, accountability and accountability, and the possibility of dropping immunity remains very fast according to the direction of the representative.
– It is not the role of the House of Representatives at all. It plays the role of the judiciary in this last story, and the judiciary must see its work and investigations, and this does not affect the prestige of the House or its work in anything, but rather to save the law for everyone, because this is not an opinion issue or a political issue, but rather related to a fact specific corruption.
If we disregard the idea of ​​accountability and accountability for the representatives, we may encounter really corrupt people who commit crimes and are party to corruption incidents or benefit from immunity to protect their illegal actions.
– We have, for example, MP Alaa Hassanein, who was in Parliament the last session, and it was rumored that he was involved in excavations and antiquities trade, and in a famous video of the Speaker of Parliament who passed Ali Abdel Aal when he wanted to threaten him on one occasion when he objected, he said, “Stay in the antiquities.” And after At the end of the parliamentary session, he was arrested as part of a gang specialized in the antiquities trade, in a famous case in which businessman Hassan Ratib is imprisoned.
– Because of the misuse of the idea of ​​immunity, we have seen over the years people who were taking large loans and parliamentary immunity giving them protection in borrowing, or people who trade in illegal activities such as antiquities, or people whose main trade is in violating buildings and seizing lands, and items Many corrupt businessmen struggle to enter Parliament for this purpose only.
– And if this immunity has a clear mechanism for raising it during corruption cases, then this type of people will not have the desire to run for parliament or engage in political work from its door, because they spend very much money, whether electoral bribes, propaganda, or other things in order to gain this immunity And they can benefit from it in their own legitimate and illegal work, or they can benefit from the influence that they can gain in brokerage operations, bribery, and others.
At the same time, you can’t say that lifting immunity is a final solution, because on the other hand, it will be a sword that is completely in control of any deputy, who will play his real role in criticism, accountability and accountability, because any malicious report will be submitted by any citizen who will be imprisoned immediately, and of course even with immunity in the organs When the state decides to lift immunity, these procedures take place within a few hours without considering the time for maliciousness or targeting the deputy because of his opinion, as happened in the council that passed with Representative Anwar Sadat.
– Here we must say again that the idea of ​​immunity does not exist constitutionally and legally to protect MPs from prosecution on corruption charges, but mainly to protect them from accountability regarding their opinions or the actions they perform within the framework of their oversight and legislative tasks.
– It is never reasonable for Parliament to replace the administrative oversight, the prosecution, and the judiciary in deciding whether or not to convict an accused or a person, so interfering in these matters in the manner in which they took place was incomprehensible.
– He was actually the allegor, if the deputy is sure of the integrity of his position that the prosecution sees her work in the investigation, and the idea is not rejected from its door, because this is a waste of justice by fortifying the idea of ​​“parliament immunity” in a corruption case, not in an opinion case, for example.
– The same council that defends “accused of corruption” is the one who referred MP Muhammad Abdel-Alim Daoud to the values ​​committee because he just said his opinion under the dome and accused the majority party early this year of distributing cartons during the elections to urge citizens to vote for its candidates.
*******
– In the end, the solution to crises like this is that we live in a real democratic system, in which there is a separation of powers, laws and practices that entrench justice and that everyone is equal before the law in the fight against corruption and other things.
– It is not really required from the legislative authority in the country that it sets itself up as a judge and prosecutor in something that is not related to the core of its work, but rather in accusing a member of a purely criminal need. On the contrary, we are supposed to see the representatives as countries or models.
Continuing to use “immunity” in this way leaves doubts that it has uses other than those stipulated in the constitution and the law.
– We hope to see in our country a real democratic system that separates the authorities and gives priority to the law, and that is not subject to any political balances in the fight against corruption.
****