Egypt`s judicial system is an independent branch of the Egyptian government that includes both secular and religious courts. An interesting variant was that sometimes judgments were made by divine oracles rather than human officials. For example, in Deir el-Medina, the deified founder of the village was often invited to decide cases. While it`s impossible to know exactly how it worked, it appears that a document was created for both sides of the case and placed on both sides of a road. Whichever side the image of the god leaned towards, he was made the victor. Also specifically during the 21st dynasty (1069-945 BC), the law was given by the oracle of Amun. Documentation of previous cases has been recorded and preserved and, like our own modern legal systems, these court documents have been used as precedents for ongoing cases. Some of these documents have survived and are among our best evidence of how the ancient Egyptian legal system works. Egypt has three supreme courts: the Supreme Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court.
The Supreme Constitutional Court has sole jurisdiction to rule on questions of the constitutionality of laws. The Court of Cassation is the supreme court of the general judicial system. The Supreme Administrative Court is the highest court in the administrative judicial system, known as the Council of State. Of course, there are a variety of other documented court cases. From there, we know the punishment in criminal proceedings. For example, we know from court documents in Deir el-Medina that punishing stolen or misappropriated goods can be as simple as returning the goods with a double value fine. Simple corporal punishment could involve a hundred strokes of the cane and, in more severe cases, 5 cuts or bleeding marks as a sign of permanent shame. Pharaoh himself could very well decide the most important criminal cases, or at other times he could appoint a special commission with full authority to render a verdict. Depending on the seriousness of the case, it was not uncommon to be exiled to Nubia or the Western Oasis, or sent to work in distant mines or quarries. Some crimes were punishable by mutilation, which consisted of cutting off a hand, tongue, nose or ears. In extreme cases, the death penalty was imposed using tools on a pole, live burns, drowning or beheading.
Since the culprit had injured Ma`at, it was also assumed that the individual would suffer from failure, poverty, disease, blindness or deafness, with the final settlement pending in the death court. It should be noted that while the punishments of ancient Egypt are often considered barbaric, there was some support for basic human rights. For example, Pharaoh Bocchoris abolished imprisonment for debt. Think. Although the law of the time is what the SCAF said, it was the intrinsic authority of the constitutional text that was considered decisive, not the SCAF`s authority to declare new statutes by decree, although the SCAF could amend its constitutional declaration at any time and in any way. Whether or not it reflects SCAF`s view of what constitutes law, it reflects the dominant norms and constructs of Egyptian legal culture. In practice, the two systems actually have much more in common than is often assumed. However, it is important that those who are accustomed to examining the law and legal procedures through the lens of a common law legal system recognize that there are significant differences in how the two systems view and apply the law. One irony is that Egypt, with its widespread Islamic culture, has adopted a legal system that seeks to objectify law through codification, not even recognizing the possibility for reasonable minds to differ in the interpretation of legal texts (hence the absence of dissenting opinions in court decisions), and does not give substantial legal weight to judicial precedents. while Islamic law (at least in the dominant Sunni tradition in Egypt) is generally regarded as the product of an ongoing dialogue between scholars and jurists (similar to common law), resulting in several recognized schools of law, all essentially derived from the same sources of law, all considered equally legitimate, and within which great weight is given to decide on a case-by-case basis.