Home » Blog » Government of Egypt v. Khaled Ali & Others (Tiran and Sanafir Islands)

Government of Egypt v. Khaled Ali & Others (Tiran and Sanafir Islands)

By /

Authored By: Sama Hany

Mansoura University

  • Case Title & Citation

Case Name: Government of Egypt v. Khaled Ali & Others (Tiran and Sanafir Islands)

Citation: Supreme Administrative Court & Supreme Constitutional Court, Egypt, 2017, 2018

  • Court Name & Bench

Court 1: Supreme Administrative Court (SAC)
Court 2: Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC)

Judges:

  • Supreme Administrative Court Ruling:The Presiding Judge (Head of the court circuit that issued the ruling) was: Judge Ahmed Al-Shazli 
  • Supreme Constitutional Court Ruling:
    The ruling was issued by the full bench of the Supreme Constitutional Court, which was headed at the time by its President (Chief Justice) Hanafy Elgebaly

Bench Type:

  • Supreme Administrative Court: Three Judge Bench (Appeal Division)
  • Supreme Constitutional Court: Full Bench / General Assembly

Date of Judgment

  • Supreme Administrative Court: Jan 16, 2017

  • Supreme Constitutional Court: March 3, 2018

Parties Involved

Petitioner: Khaled Ali and other lawyers (challenging the agreement)

Respondent: Egyptian Government (Prime Minister & President)

Facts of the Case

  • Egypt and Saudi Arabia signed the Maritime Boundary Demarcation Agreement in April 2016, which included the transfer of sovereignty over the islands of Tiran and Sanafir.
  • The case immediately ignited wide public and legal controversy in Egypt.
  • Lawyers filed a lawsuit before the Administrative Judiciary to challenge the agreement and its validity.
  • The Supreme Constitutional Court later intervened to consider the scope of judicial jurisdiction (specifically the conflict of jurisdiction) and matters related to national sovereignty.

Issues Raised

  • Was the Transfer Constitutional? Did the agreement to transfer the two islands violate the Egyptian Constitution, which forbids the government from giving up any part of the nation’s territory?

  • Which Authority Decides? Did the decision to sign the agreement fall under the exclusive authority of the executive and legislative branches (a “sovereign act”) which is out of the courts’ jurisdiction, or was it an administrative act that the courts had the right to review and potentially annul?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner:

  • Argued that the agreement was unconstitutional since Article 151 of the Constitution forbids ceding any part of Egyptian territory without a referendum.
  • They claimed that the islands are historically Egyptian, presenting documents to support Egypt’s continuous sovereignty over Tiran and Sanafir.
  • They asserted that the judiciary has the authority to review executive actions (including the signing of the agreement) that affect national sovereignty

Respondent/Defendant:

  • The government asserted that the two islands belong to Saudi Arabia and that the Egyptian government was only responsible for protecting them for defense-related reasons (starting in the 1950s).
  • That the agreement falls within the category of Acts of Sovereignty (Acts of Government), and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the courts. 

Judgment 

  • Supreme Administrative Court (SAC)

The court ruled that transferring sovereignty contradicts Article 151 of the Constitution. The SAC, therefore, annulled the agreement, considering it void from a constitutional perspective.

  •  Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC)

 The SCC asserted that the matter of national sovereignty is out of the Administrative Court’s jurisdiction, due to the principle of separation of powers. The court held that the agreement is a sovereignty act (Act of Government) and is considered subject to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities, not the judiciary.

Legal Reasoning 

  • Administrative Supreme Court reasoning 
  1. protecting the Egyptian Constitution and the right of the people not to cede any part of Egypt’s land without a referendum. 
  2. The judicial authority has the right to review decisions affecting national sovereignty if it was unconstitutional.
  •  Constitutional Court Reasoning:
  1. Sovereignty acts fall within the jurisdiction of the government alone, the Supreme Administrative Court exceeded its jurisdiction. 
  2. Protecting the independence of the state in making sovereign decisions in which courts may not interfere. 

Conclusion

The case is an obvious example of overlapping jurisdiction between an administrative court and a constitutional court. While the Supreme Administrative Court focused on protecting the constitution and the people’s rights on one hand, the Constitutional Court on the other hand focused on protecting national sovereignty (as an act of government) and preventing Judicial intervention in it.

The conflict between them shows the delicate balance between judicial control over the constitutionality of executive acts and respect for the competencies of the state in sovereign affairs.

Bibliography

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top