Two legal experts have raised alarm over what they describe as a “serious procedural flaw” that could deprive parliamentary candidates of their right to appeal election results, after Egypt’s Higher Administrative Court declined jurisdiction in more than 65 cases and referred them to the Court of Cassation.
In a series of recent rulings, the Higher Administrative Court found it lacked authority to hear appeals concerning candidates who secured their seats outright in the first round. It argued that such appeals—relating to the validity of parliamentary membership—fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Cassation. The administrative court, by contrast, is only empowered to hear appeals concerning decisions that lead to a run-off. Consequently, it transferred the pending appeals to the Court of Cassation for review.
But two legal sources with knowledge of electoral litigation say this process may render the appeals inadmissible. They told Al Manassa that, according to recent rulings, the Court of Cassation does not recognize referrals from other judicial bodies in cases involving the validity of parliamentary membership.
“These appeals risk being dismissed on procedural grounds for being submitted through the wrong legal channel,” one of the sources said.
Both sources, who requested anonymity, stressed that Egyptian law lays out a specific and strict process for bringing such cases before the Court of Cassation. That process requires direct filing within the legal deadline—typically 30 days from the announcement of results—and the payment of a required deposit. The law does not provide for referral through the State Council.
They added that the Court of Cassation, Egypt’s highest civil and criminal court, adheres rigidly to procedural rules and does not accept cases referred from courts outside its jurisdiction. The idea of “referral to the Court of Cassation,” they said, is not recognized in the country’s procedural or cassation laws.
“It’s a procedural invention that has no basis in statute,” one of them said.
They also pointed to multiple judicial precedents in which the Court of Cassation dismissed similar appeals for failing to comply with legal procedures and timeframes. The sources warned that unless lawyers file directly with the correct court, their clients may lose their right to a hearing altogether.
To illustrate the risk, one source cited a 13 February 2024 ruling in an electoral case dating back to the 2015 parliamentary elections. In that case—No. 260 of judicial year 85—the Administrative Court had referred an appeal to the Court of Cassation, which ruled it inadmissible.
In its judgment, the Court of Cassation held that the law “sets out a mandatory and exclusive route for filing these appeals directly before the Court of Cassation, which cannot be replaced by submitting a case to a court that lacks jurisdiction and then referring it.”
According to the case file, obtained by Al Manassa, the appeal had been filed by a losing candidate requesting a recount. The Administrative Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Cassation Court, which rejected it outright.
In its reasoning, the Court stated that procedural rules are a matter of public order, and that Law No. 24 of 2012 requires appeals to be filed directly with its own registry, within 30 days of result announcement, and accompanied by a deposit. Submitting the case elsewhere, even if referred later, does not meet those conditions.
“Filing with the wrong court cannot be corrected retroactively,” the court ruled.
The judgment concluded that when the law assigns jurisdiction to a specific court and outlines a defined procedure, litigants may not seek redress elsewhere—and failure to follow the proper path must result in the appeal being deemed inadmissible.
The issue has come to a head following a series of explosive rulings last month by the Supreme Administrative Court. In 30 electoral districts, it struck down the National Elections Authority’s decisions to declare winners in individual-seat races—where run-offs had been expected this week. Combined with 19 prior annulments, the number of overturned districts in the first phase of elections now stands at 49 out of 70.
The annulments followed a call by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi for the election authority to investigate alleged irregularities during the first round. But observers say the problems appear structural.
The second round of voting has since confirmed that little has changed. According to legal monitors and media reports, the same irregularities were repeated, following the same pattern as the first phase.
