Othman Al -Sharif: a very important legal vision – and conviviality remains – ✍️ Dr Omar Kabo
I distinguished the great scientist and the great lawyer. By publishing his participation in one of the legal groups that collected our legal symbols, the judicial and pure judges who made a trip of a great offer and contribution.
I am happy and honored to publish his discreet intervention in this area of (and the conviviality of remains) which seeks the public good. To the control of his important message which came as follows:
Greetings and appreciation, Mawlana, Dr Awad Al -Nur, Mawlana Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Salem, and thanks to Mawlana Nadia Ammar, who began the discussion on the constitutional judicial power – a circle of the Supreme Court or a Constitutional Court?!
I support the pursuit of the Constitutional Court because its creation as an independent court was the direct result of the Sudanese constitutional development, as well as its creation as an independent court does not violate the principle of independence and not opposing to the independence of the judiciary.
The permanent constitution of 1998 stipulated that the creation of this court was – really a constitutional development. It was noteworthy because it cams before the Constant Constitution 1973 (Which was Issued in Responses to the 1972 Agrement’s due) and all the successive transitional constitutions of Sudan and constitutional decree since the 1953 self -government Law, which meant som constitutional from the independent for the independent rule COULD BE SAID THAT IT IS THE FIRST Constitution for SUDAN
.
The 1998 permanent constitution was based on strong constitutional jurisprudence and a good knowledge of the questions of Sudan
The principles and decisions and jurisprudence of this constitution were support for the vision of the Government of Sudan in the negotiations of the 2003 peace agreement between the vision of the popular movement and the Government of Sudan. I see – with great humility – that this agreement has obtained a fair balance between the rights of the two parties and often unanimously for the people of Sudan on the 2005 transition constitution, which was published in the implementation of this agreement.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court – as an independent judiciary – has become under the 1998 Constitution and the 2005 Constitution of the Constitution of Constitutional Development in Sudan.
It should be noted that the Ministry of the Supreme Court for Constitutional Affairs and Conflicts has no support for an objective law or a constitutional text for its creation, other than the law of civil procedure, which was organized by a circle of the Supreme Court to rule on constitutional disputes.
Given that many amendments have been brought to the Civil Procedure Act, where procedural texts have been excluded to appeal to administrative decisions to an objective law for administrative judicial and procedural texts for arbitration to objective law for arbitration, which has become guided by the arbitration law 1985 International recognition by arbitration as a judicial independent consensual judicial officials in Sudan.
Although it is preceded by the need required by legal development to achieve justice, we can say that the continuation of the Constitutional Court is the need for constitutional development in Sudan.
It is perhaps not the contradiction that the abolition of the Constitutional Court requires the abolition of relevant provisions and constitutional texts, which the 2019 constitutional document has ended, in addition to the abolition of this Court does not respect the constitutional concepts of the judiciary with its powers and their powers stipulated in its law and the transitional constitution of 2005.
On the other hand, if the Constitutional Court ceases to carry out its actions to put an end to the service of its judges without resolving it, it leads to the absence of the judiciary by considering and judging the constitutional disputes because the Department of the Supreme Court was canceled by the issuance of the law of the Constitutional Court.
There is no prejudice to my discretion of the authority of the Constitutional Court to interfere in the final decisions of the Supreme Court in the event that the decision is raped to a constitutional right or to a violation of the Constitution. It is a question of underlining the principle of maintenance and supervision of the Constitution.
There may be no disagreements on this subject that all the courts are concerned and are forced to respect the Constitution, so that it does not allow any decision against the Constitution.
The abolition of any action that violates the Constitution confirms supremacy and respect for the Constitution, and as everyone must adhere to the Constitution and protect it, it is the first door of the courts.
In this context, we strongly appreciate the article of the judge of the Constitutional Court, Mawlana al -Alam, Abd Al -Rahman Yaqoub, in which it was clearly specified that the interference of the Court in the decisions of the judiciary was only proven by the publication of the judgment of the Constitution as an act of actions which violate the Constitution, the Court and the other courses and all should not accept it.
In this look, i hope to add to the preceding that article preceded by the constitutional court headed by mawlana abdullah al -amin, may God have mercy on him (in which i was representing the callalelant) and the court ruled in accepting the case and canceling the ruling of the review of the review Was Issued Without Providing The Right of the References Against the Responate To The Review Request, Meaning That the Ruling Has Violed The Right of the References to repel it at the right audience that the Constitution is guaranteed to confirm the Constitution. .
Here, we hope that we emphasize that the law of Sudan has obtained the guarantee of the right to defense in many cases, which we mention, but without limiting ourselves, the implementation of the foreign decision and foreign arbitration decisions by the Sudanese courts. It is not valid for the implementation unless the Sudanese court only verifies the convicted person was declared of a correct legal declaration to exercise his right to defense. In general, Sudanese law requires the nullity of the arbitration decision if the convicted person is not announced, properly announced.
And to confirm the respect and implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, he decided that the unwinding of his decisions is a matter of contempt or insulting the Court, depending on the fact that the non-implementation tendencies-are a work that violates the Constitution. This – according to my knowledge – is decided by the English courts.
In fact, non-compliance with the decision of the courts in general indicates a lack of respect. .
We conclude from the above, that the Constitutional Court practicing its actions is an irreplaceable necessity to protect the Constitution and constitutional rights and to confirm the independence of the judiciary, depending on whether this Court was established in accordance with the provisions of the Sudanese Constitution 1998 and confirmed by the 2019 constitutional document.
Othman Muhammad al -Sharif
