(AFP File Photo)
Government representative Omar Al-Sherif urged the Shura Council to quickly pass the new protest bill in a Sunday committee meeting.
Al-Sherif, Assistant Minister of Justice, said the government-drafted bill is necessary regardless of current events and the upswing in protests and violence. He added that the bill was in line with the provisions of constitutional articles on the right to protest.
The upper house of parliament’s Committee on Constitutional and Legislative Affairs started the discussion and review of the “Protecting the right to peaceful protest in public places” bill drafted by the Ministry of Justice on Sunday.
“A protest should not interfere with or delay the lives of citizens and state institutions must be protected. The state must not be prevented from assuming its duties and this bill forces the Ministry of Interior to protect protesters,” Al-Sherif told council members.
The Shura Council’s agenda also includes discussion of the new judiciary bill presented by the moderate Islamist Al-Wasat Party, which was referred to the Committee on Constitutional and Legislative Affairs.
The committee will start discussing the bill on Monday despite Shura Council Speaker Ahmed Fahmy receiving a letter from Judges’ Club president Ahmed Al-Zend warning against discussing the bill and urging the upper house of parliament to cancel it and leave such legislative issues to the next House of Representatives.
Shura Council members dismissed the letter and said that it was unconstitutional for one branch of government to interfere in the affairs of another, adding that Al-Zend’s threats were empty and that there was nothing he could do to the Shura Council.
Opposition council members in turn said they would draft an alternative judiciary bill that sets the retirement age for judges at 70 instead of 60 as the Al-Wasat bill does, adding that they would also remove the power to investigate judges from the Ministry of Justice and grant it to the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, calling the bill currently in discussion a “massacre” of the judiciary.
