Reference : Clash of the Titans: A Comparative Approach to Reform of Judicial Accountability in Egypt
Scientific journals : Article
Law, criminology & political science : Judicial law
Clash of the Titans: A Comparative Approach to Reform of Judicial Accountability in Egypt
Al Hajjaji, Shams Al Din mailto [University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) > Law Research Unit >]
Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University School of Law
[en] This Article argues for the reform of judicial accountability rules in Egypt. The lack of a real separation of powers and “checks and balances” between the three powers often leads the judiciary to become a periphery in the executive body, rather than an independent authority that invigilates and monitors any violation of the law. Judges who refuse to comply with executive wishes are often subjected to persecution from the Ministry of Justice and its Judicial Inspection Department, which can reach up to the level of impeachment. The Ministry of Justice uses judicial accountability as a tool of retribution over disobedient and inconsistent judges. Currently, the executive authority monopolizes the judicial accountability process and its outcomes. Reformation towards a transparent democratic judiciary requires major participation by the public in the judicial accountability process. This participation aims not only to exclude the authority of the Ministry of Justice over the judiciary and the judges, but it also aims to increase public participation in a democratic judiciary.
Researchers ; Professionals ; Students ; General public

File(s) associated to this reference

Fulltext file(s):

Open access
2017:5_Clash of the Titans_Seattle Law Review copy.pdfPublisher postprint2.79 MBView/Open

Bookmark and Share SFX Query

All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.