Al-Dostor Party (The Consitution Party) is currently embroiled in an internal and legal crisis, highlighting the controversial role of the Political Parties Affairs Committee (PPAC) in resolving party disputes. Instead of mitigating the crisis, the committee’s interventions and decisions have seemingly exacerbated the situation. This raises concerns about the PPAC’s influence on party competition and political pluralism, particularly with the upcoming parliamentary elections. Such interventions could undermine parties’ ability to participate effectively and potentially serve as tools for political exclusion, underscoring the urgent need for reforms to ensure the independence of political parties and prevent administrative interference.
On October 12, the Administrative Court of the State Council postponed a lawsuit filed by the Al- Dostor Party’s president, Gamila Ismail, against the PPAC’s decision, rescheduling the hearing to November 30. Gamila Ismail, in her personal capacity and as party president, filed the lawsuit on September 19, challenging the PPAC’s decision (No. 87 of 2024), which declared the party’s presidency vacant until its general conference convenes.
The crisis dates back to internal disputes within the party since 2022, with a key disagreement arising over participation in the 2023 presidential elections. This early clash between the party’s high committee and its president culminated in the general assembly voting against participating in the elections. The situation worsened with the dismissal of some high committee members and the suspension of six others. Despite these dismissals and suspensions, the committee continued to convene regularly, accusing the president of implementing a fictitious internal charter, failing to approve the general assembly’s resolutions, and not opening a bank account for the party—hindering financial oversight. The party claimed the PPAC was partly responsible for the latter issue due to its persistent refusal to approve necessary notifications for the party to open a new bank account or establish an official website. Additionally, the PPAC declined to acknowledge decisions made by the general assembly in October 2023, further complicating matters.
Following a letter from the opposition faction within the party’s high committee, notifying the PPAC of its decision to dismiss Gamila Ismail, the committee endorsed this decision on September 19, 2024. It declared the party’s presidency vacant and called for the convening of a “general conference” to elect a new president.
According to Gamila Ismail’s legal challenge, the PPAC’s reliance on the party’s outdated 2012 charter, which has since been replaced, significantly contributed to the crisis. Despite the party having submitted its updated 2018 charter to the PPAC on three occasions—each time the committee claimed it lacked a copy—the committee based its decision on the old charter. Elections held under the 2018 charter had resulted in Gamila Ismail being elected president, alongside Mohamed Khalil as Secretary-General and Islam Abu Leila as Treasurer. The 2018 charter, which the PPAC had acknowledged in its approval of election results, replaced the “general conference” structure with a general assembly. This suggests that the PPAC’s intervention exacerbated the divide between Ismail’s faction and the high committee’s opposition bloc, rather than fostering resolution.
This is not the first instance of tensions between Al-Dostor Party and the PPAC. In 2020, the party boycotted parliamentary elections due to the committee’s lack of cooperation. At the time, then-president Alaa Al-Khayam issued a statement saying, “Al- Dostor Party will not participate with candidates in this election due to the absence of the expected cooperation from the Political Parties Affairs Committee, which hinders the party’s ability to lead initiatives for the values of life, freedom, and social justice.”
Similar Incidents in Administrative Courts
The Political Parties Affairs Committee’s decision to endorse the decision of the High Committee of Al-Dostor Party to remove its chairperson reignites the issue of the limits of the administrative body, represented by the Committee, in interfering in internal party affairs and disputes. This matter has been previously addressed by the State Council judiciary, which has also clarified the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court versus the Supreme Administrative Court in determining the legal status of party leaders.
The case most comparable to Al-Dostor Party’s current situation is the leadership dispute in Al-Shaab Al-Democraty Party (Democratic People’s Party) between Mahmoud El-Sawy and Anwar Afifi in 1992-1993. At the time, the Political Parties Affairs Committee chose not to recognize either as the party leader. However, in its ruling on March 2, 1993, in Case No. 6148/46, the Administrative Court ruled that the Committee’s decision was flawed, explicitly stating:
“If a dispute arises within a party regarding its leadership, the Political Parties Affairs Committee has no authority to intervene in the conflict or to recognize or dismiss either side. The matter should be left to the party itself to resolve internally, either through agreement or legal means.”
This principle was upheld later by the Supreme Administrative Court, which stated:
“The law mandates that a party must notify the Committee of any changes regarding its leadership solely to fulfill legal formalities. The Committee’s role is confined to receiving this notification and acting accordingly. The law does not empower the Committee to take any further actions in this regard, as such actions would constitute interference in party affairs contrary to the law. Exceptions to this rule are strictly limited to those explicitly stated in Article 17 of Law No. 40 of 1977, which does not include determining party leadership. Any internal leadership disputes are to be resolved within the party itself based on its charter, internal regulations, or other consensual mechanisms.”
(Case No. 2536/39, ruling dated January 29, 1995).
The crisis within Al-Dostor Party highlights one of the gaps in the Political Parties Law, which remains unaddressed despite multiple amendments, the latest being Law No. 12 of 2011.
The first of these gaps is the lack of explicit provisions in the Political Parties Law to keep the Political Parties Affairs Committee out of internal party matters and to ensure its non-intervention in internal disputes, particularly regarding party leadership. The legal framework surrounding this issue remains ambiguous, allowing the Committee to intervene and impede parties’ operations.
The Political Parties Law does not explicitly grant the Committee or its chairman the authority to reject decisions made by party general assemblies, dismiss party leaders, revoke the legal status of party leadership, or annul internal party elections, provided that these elections are conducted democratically. The exception lies in Article 17 of Law No. 12 of 2011, which allows the Committee’s chairman, with the Committee’s approval, to petition the First Circuit of the Supreme Administrative Court to dissolve a party and liquidate its assets. This petition follows investigations conducted by the Public Prosecutor that prove a party no longer meets the founding requirements outlined in the same law. However, none of these requirements pertain to party leadership, highlighting the need for clear legislative intervention to address this gap.
The second issue raised by Al-Dostor Party’s crisis and the case currently before the State Council pertains to jurisdiction: whether such cases fall under the Administrative Court or the Supreme Administrative Court. This ambiguity in the Political Parties Law became apparent following the 1979 amendments, which designated the Supreme Administrative Court as the body responsible for appeals against decisions to reject party formation (per Article 8) and for cases involving party dissolution and asset liquidation (per Article 17). Previously, these matters were within the purview of the Administrative Court.
These amendments were criticized at the time for limiting appeals on party dissolution and formation decisions to the Supreme Administrative Court, effectively depriving parties of the opportunity to challenge court rulings in cases where the initial verdict came from the Administrative Court. This change was seen as a way to restrict the nascent political parties of that era.
Currently, the issue lies in the fact that the Political Parties Law does not definitively clarify whether the Supreme Administrative Court has jurisdiction over all party-related issues or if its jurisdiction is limited to cases of party formation, dissolution, or the suspension of party-affiliated publications. The latter interpretation aligns with the Administrative Court’s stance in several rulings, which reaffirmed its jurisdiction over party-related disputes, except in cases of formation, dissolution, or suspension of party publications. This position was reflected in rulings such as Case No. 5294/47, issued on September 21, 1993, and Case No. 6148/46, issued on March 2, 1993.
The Al-Dostor Party crisis is particularly significant in light of the upcoming legislative elections in Egypt. The expected ruling from the Administrative Court could impact the party’s chances of participating in these elections. Moreover, rumors of the Political Parties Affairs Committee reviewing the status of various political parties raise concerns about similar scenarios potentially being repeated to prevent other parties from participating in the elections.
In this context, it may be essential to review the Political Parties Law and propose amendments to ensure fair and equitable opportunities for parties to remain active in the political arena. Among the key recommendations for amendments are provisions that explicitly prohibit administrative bodies, represented by the Political Parties Affairs Committee, from interfering in parties’ internal affairs. Furthermore, the law should clarify the judicial authorities responsible for handling all disputes and issues related to political parties.