Judges forced into retirement for failing to toe state line, rights groups claim

Several rights groups issued a statement on Wednesday condemning the Supreme Judicial Council's decision to force 41 judges into retirement for purportedly showing sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood.

The statement was signed by 12 organizations, including the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the Arab Network for Human Rights Information and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.

The move sends "a message to judges to withhold their opinions, except when expressing approval for the current political administration," the groups argued.

The ruling came after the Judges Club filed complaints against two different groups of judges. In the first case, 31 judges were accused of agreeing to participate in sit-ins demanding former President Mohamed Morsi's return to office after he was ousted in 2013. In the second case, 10 judges came under scrutiny for allegedly being part of the Judges for Egypt group, which has been aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood since the now-banned organization came to power in 2012.

The SJC met to review the cases on Saturday, and ruled that all the implicated justices would be sent into early retirement.  

Rights groups argued that the judges weren't punished for failing to maintain neutrality, but for expressing views on the wrong end of the political spectrum.

Several other judges have expressed political opinions with impunity, as long as those opinions were in support of the state, the organizations pointed out. Some even openly participated in the June 30 protests against Morsi without facing consequences, the statement added.

"Judges have even expressed political opinions while sitting on the bench of cases they were presiding over — a breach of all international judicial norms — but they have not been subject to disciplinary action, or lost their judgeships, or been held accountable in these cases. They have instead remained on the bench, with particular cases referred to them for adjudication,” the statement asserted.

The original complaints against the judges were based on Article 73 of the Judiciary Law, which prohibits judges from participating in politics. However, the statement pointed out that the article actually forbids explicit involvement in the political arena, such as running for parliament. In addition, the statement contended that international charters protect the judiciary's right to free expression, as long as justices preserve the dignity and impartiality of the institution that they represent.