Egypt’s Red Sea islands transfer exposes deep judicial and constitutional divides
A legal dispute over Egypt’s transfer of two Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia sparked years of controversy. The case involved conflicting rulings from Egypt’s highest courts, raising questions about judicial authority and national sovereignty. At its centre stood the 2016 agreement to hand over Tiran and Sanafir, a move that divided lawyers, judges, and the public.
The conflict began in April 2016 when Egypt and Saudi Arabia signed an accord transferring sovereignty over Tiran and Sanafir. Lawyers quickly challenged the deal, arguing it violated the constitution. On January 16, 2017, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) ruled the agreement unconstitutional, citing Article 151 of Egypt’s Constitution. The court declared the transfer void and emphasised its role in protecting constitutional rights.
The government appealed, shifting the case to the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC). Under Chief Justice Hanafy Elgebaly, the SCC took a different stance. On March 3, 2018, it ruled that sovereignty matters fell outside the Administrative Court’s jurisdiction, invoking the separation of powers. The SCC argued that such agreements were executive and legislative decisions, not subject to judicial review. The clash highlighted a deeper institutional divide. The SAC focused on upholding constitutional protections, while the SCC prioritised shielding sovereign acts from court intervention. Legal experts noted the rare overlap between administrative and constitutional courts, each asserting authority over the same dispute. Public debates intensified as citizens questioned whether judicial bodies could—or should—block high-level diplomatic agreements. Ultimately, the SCC’s ruling prevailed, reinforcing the executive’s power in sovereignty matters. But the case left lingering uncertainty about the limits of judicial oversight in Egypt’s political system.
The Tiran and Sanafir dispute ended with the SCC affirming the government’s right to handle sovereignty issues without judicial interference. The ruling set a precedent that executive agreements on territorial matters remain beyond the reach of administrative courts. For now, the islands’ transfer stands, though the legal tensions exposed by the case remain unresolved.
