Latest news with #RuleofLawIndex
L'Orient-Le Jour
22-07-2025
- Politics
- L'Orient-Le Jour
Egypt legal reform raises fears over right to fair trial
Egypt is poised to adopt a new law aimed at overhauling the judicial process, but human rights groups warn it could entrench long-standing abuses including arbitrary detention, travel bans and expedited trials. The legislation, currently awaiting approval by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is being promoted by the government as a step toward streamlining legal procedures, from arrest to trial. Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty told the U.N. Human Rights Council it would bring a "legislative revolution to criminal justice" in Egypt. Ihab al-Tamawy, the head of the parliamentary subcommittee charged with drafting the new code, told AFP it "introduces a set of new guarantees" on Egypt's notorious pretrial detention system, as well as the role of the public prosecution. But critics say the bill risks codifying repressive practices that have long eroded due process in the country. According to rights defenders, the law expands the powers of police and prosecutors and limits the role of defence lawyers, undermining judicial oversight and the right to a fair trial. In one of the new provisions that have come under scrutiny, public prosecutors will be able to order travel bans without a warrant "in cases of emergency." The law will also allow police to enter homes without an arrest warrant in cases of "distress" or "danger," which are not clearly defined. In April, U.N. rights chief Volker Turk "raised concerns" over the law and called on Sisi to "consider carefully" before signing it into force, "to ensure that it fully complies with Egypt's international human rights obligations." Right to fair trial Egypt currently ranks 135th out of 142 countries on the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index. In the latest U.N. review of its rights record in January, Egypt faced accusations of "systemic and widespread" rights violations, including torture, enforced disappearances and unfair trials. In recent years, Egypt has been accused of formalising into normal law exceptional measures previously allowed in states of emergency. According to prominent human rights lawyer Khaled Ali, the law "does not truly combat corruption, expands the powers granted to the police and prosecution and undermines the role of defence lawyers," which he said is "essential to a fair trial." Along with 15 other independent lawyers, Ali submitted 176 proposed amendments to the law, none of which were adopted. Mahmoud Shalaby, Egypt researcher at Amnesty International, told AFP the bill "codifies practices that were already taking place outside the boundaries of the law, and grants them legitimacy in an attempt to improve Egypt's image." According to Karim Ennarah, research director at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), the new changes will come at the expense of investigations, defendants and their lawyers. Under the new law, defence lawyers can be denied access to case files and witnesses – "practices already common, but that will now become legal," Ennarah said. 'Recycling' The law will also expand remote trials, which Ennarah describes as "rushed" virtual hearings, where dozens of jailed defendants are corralled behind a screen on a video call with a judge. Remote trials "undermine two fundamental principles of a fair trial", according to Ennarah, namely "the defendant's right to meet privately with their lawyer, and their right to appear before a judge" to assess any harm or abuse inflicted upon them. Egypt is routinely criticized for the widespread use of pretrial detention, a phenomenon that proponents say is addressed under the new law. While the maximum period for remand detention will be reduced from 24 to 18 months, Amnesty International has warned the law "provides no safeguards against abusive prolonged pretrial detention." According to Shalaby, many of Egypt's estimated tens of thousands of political prisoners are victims of a practice known as "recycling" detainees. Under the much-maligned "revolving door policy," prisoners are often handed new charges instead of being released, restarting the clock on their remand period. Another issue, he says, is that when the law goes into effect, citizens will no longer be able to sue "in case of violations during their arrest or detention." In 2024, EIPR documented 10 cases of torture-related deaths in detention facilities. Rights groups regularly report cases of medical neglect, abuse and overcrowding in Egyptian prisons.
Indian Express
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Trump's bizarre threat to punish Brazil for acting like a democracy will backfire on Americans
There is nothing new about the United States lecturing other nations on the rule of law. But in the past, such scoldings have been doled out in support of democratic values, rather than in an attempt to subvert them. Last week, Donald Trump flipped the old dynamic on its head: The American president delivered a particularly undiplomatic tongue-lashing to his Brazilian counterpart, Lula da Silva — for obeying the law, respecting a free election, and holding a would-be dictator accountable for his crimes. The facts of the case, and Trump's threat to punish Brazil with crushing tariffs for the sin of upholding democracy, show how far the US has slipped from the standards it long claimed to champion. Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro revels in the nickname 'Trump of the Tropics,' and in office he shared the authoritarian leanings of his soulmate. When Trump lost his re-election bid in 2020, he fraudulently denied the election results and incited his supporters to stage a violent assault on the US Capitol. When Bolsonaro lost his own re-election campaign two years later, he followed his friend's playbook almost exactly: Just two days after the anniversary of Trump's January 6 insurrection, Bolsonaro's partisans stormed the federal government buildings in the capital city of Brasília. But Brazil's justice system took its job more seriously than America's had. Merrick Garland, the timid US Attorney General selected by Trump's successor Joe Biden, dithered and delayed investigating Trump's crimes until it was too late for a successful prosecution. Brazil's justice system, by contrast, snapped speedily into action: In February 2025, it charged the former leader with a variety of coup-related offenses. On his first day back in office this year, Trump pardoned every one of the nearly 1,600 insurgents who had been convicted (in many cases, who had pleaded guilty) for the January 6 attack. The fact that Brazil was prosecuting Bolsonaro for nearly identical actions has clearly enraged Trump. 'This Trial should not be taking place,' he fulminated, in his letter to Bolsonaro's successor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. 'It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!' Is Bolsonaro guilty of the crimes alleged? It sure looks that way — but that's what a trial is meant to determine. Nobody alleges that the Brazilian judicial system isn't credible: The World Justice Project, for example, gives the nation the exact same rating on its Rule of Law Index that it gives to India. The evidence against Bolsonaro is strong, and he has every opportunity to make his counter-argument in court. That's how the rule of law works. Well, that's how it works in nations which respect the law, and for people who aren't Donald Trump. Throughout his life, Trump has used his wealth and power to evade legal accountability for alleged crimes ranging from fraud and corruption to sexual abuse and theft of classified documents. When he finally faced trial for his most serious attack on American democracy, he was given the constitutionally-implausible gift of absolute legal immunity — by a Supreme Court majority composed of justices who had either been appointed by him or effectively declared themselves his political partisans. It's understandable that he'd be surprised at Bolsonaro's fate: The prospect of misdeeds leading to meaningful punishment is something Trump himself has never had to face. If the cause of Trump's wrath is unjust, his tool of vengeance is even worse. He threatened Brazil, in contradiction to US law, with 50 per cent tariffs across the board. US citizens will bear the brunt (a tariff is simply a tax on imports), but Brazilian exporters will suffer too. An American buying a pound of coffee that costs $10 today will pay $15 for it in August; the Brazilian farm producing the coffee might go out of business. Under the US constitution, only Congress can impose taxes. It has delegated tariff authority to the President for a very specific set of reasons: Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, for example, permits tariffs in response to unfair foreign trade practices; Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorises tariffs if imports threaten national security. A president can't legally impose a tariff just because he wants to. That's exactly what Trump has threatened to do. His entire global tariff war — imposing a 10 per cent levy on all imports, with significantly higher tariffs on a country-by-country basis — has an exceptionally flimsy claim on legality. Trump invoked a provision of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, permitting tariffs in response to a formally-declared national emergency. This is, of course, nonsense: The US has no national emergency stemming from any nation's trading practices — let alone from the trading practices of every nation on earth. But threatening to slap Brazil with tariffs linked to the Bolsonaro trial goes even further: Here, there isn't even a pretense of any motivation based on America's economic interest. In other cases, Trump has made the (absurd) argument that bilateral trade deficits constitute a national emergency — but Brazil is a nation with which the US has a trade surplus, and has had one for 18 years. The rationale here is nothing more than presidential pique. Trump is threatening to use a power he does not legally possess, to inflict harm on both Americans and Brazilians, purely because a democratic nation dares to practise democracy. For decades, American leaders have spoken eloquently in defense of values such as rule of law. Sometimes the speeches were hypocritical, given the gap between America's ideals and its real-life practices. But quite often advocating universal values serves a real purpose: Ask a survivor of Apartheid South Africa or Tiananmen Square whether they desired more US moral leadership or less, and you'll hear few of them arguing for American silence. In the past, all US presidents did their moral preaching in rhetorical support of democracy and rule of law. We've never before had a president actively jawboning foreign leaders against these values. And when Trump carries out his latest tariff threat on August 1, he'll effectively translate his jawboning into precisely the kind of anti-democratic action he's trying to force on Brazil: By wielding presidential power with blatant illegality, he'll go from demanding the law's debasement to actually causing it. The writer is is author of Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God: Retracing the Ramayana Through India and Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras
New Straits Times
14-07-2025
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Strong judiciary crucial for Malaysia's economic prospects
KUALA LUMPUR: Senior lawyer Steven Thiru paid tribute to former chief justice Tengku Tun Maimun Tuan Mat, saying under her stewardship, Malaysia made steady improvements in the Rule of Law Index. "We had a renaissance. We are doing better on the index on almost every score. Not the best, because we know we are not the best and we are still struggling, but far better than the past," he said. Malaysia ranked 55 out of 142 in the Rule of Law Index in 2023 and last year. Regionally, Malaysia also ranked seventh out of 15 countries in East Asia and Pacific over the same period. Speaking at the Public Forum on Judicial Integrity held at the Universiti Malaya Alumni Association Clubhouse on Sunday, Thiru said judicial independence was not just a concern for legal professionals but a crucial factor influencing foreign investment decisions. The Commonwealth Law Association president said the international community pays close attention to how the rule of law is upheld in each country. "The Rule of Law Index, compiled by the Washington-based World Justice Project, studies the rule of law in every country on factors such as freedom, freedom of speech, association, and so on. They also do a study on how independent the judiciary is in any particular country. "Why is the Rule of Law Index important? This is a document that is looked at by any foreign government if they want to invest in any particular country. "It wants to know, in any particular country, what is your rule of law health. "If it is not very healthy, they are not going to invest. No matter how many overseas trips you make and how much potential foreign direct investment you have, none of it is going to happen, as they will go back and ask the advisors, 'Show me the (Rule of Law) Index.' "If the index shows that you are performing badly, the advice to the government and to their businesspeople is to look somewhere else," said the former Malaysian Bar president.
Hindustan Times
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Correcting the image of the higher judiciary
Former Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur is known for his candour and courage. His occasional pungent comments on a wide array of subjects were quite a draw when he was on the Bench and also thereafter. He never minced words even when discretion and silence were an alluring option. He often publicly speaks his mind about several issues pertaining to the Indian judiciary. His criticisms often focus on the executive's attempts to tinker with the independence of the judiciary. Not everybody will agree with his criticisms, but these certainly can't be ignored or glossed over. At the recent World Justice Forum in Warsaw recently, Lokur was categorical that there were many aspects of our judiciary which should cause us concern. Pointing out India's low rank (79/142) in the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index, he stated that this showed the country in a very poor light. The emphasis during his address was on the judiciary's relations with the executive. He threw more than a hint that governments were uncomfortable with independent judges and said delays in approving the recommendations of the apex court's collegium on judicial appointments had become far too frequent for comfort. Also, the executive was not acting fast in cases of corruption in the judiciary brought to its notice. He also referred to the huge backlog of cases in Indian courts. These criticisms need to be taken seriously because the country is doing so well on the economic front and cannot afford a poor image for its judiciary. From geopolitical standing to investment attractiveness, much will be at risk if such an image of the judiciary persists. Except for an occasional undignified debate or two, we have had a good record in respect of the higher judiciary. Even in connection with the recent episode involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, comments by the Supreme Court have been level-headed and dignified. The same cannot be said of the lower judiciary where there have been vituperative exchanges across the country's courts. What Lokur said in Warsaw was not anything that we did not already know. It has also been repeatedly said that in no other country are judges chosen by the judiciary itself. India is different and the Supreme Court has given itself this unique privilege. There is no point in getting exercised about it, unless it is proved that a nominee of the collegium which chooses him or her is a known dubious individual with no credentials at all. Save for a few exceptions we have had decent — if not exactly brilliant — individuals populating the Bench at the Supreme Court and the high courts. The case of Justice Varma, formerly of the Delhi HC, is more an aberration than the norm. There is a reasonably sound system of vetting of candidates for appointment to the judiciary that ensures a bad choice does not get made. If a nominee decides to be dishonest, the fault is not that of the system but that of the frailty of human nature. The same applies to partisanship. In every high court, there are individual judges with a predilection, normally subtle and occasionally unconcealed. Here again, suspicion of a bias colouring a decision is not good enough to paint a judge as unworthy. It is only fair that we should look for the legal correctness of a decision rather than hunt for misdemeanour. RK Raghavan is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The views expressed are personal.
