SCOPE OF THE APPLICABILITY OF GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION, RECUSAL, AND WITHDRAWAL TO MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

This article examines the extent to which the rules governing judicial disqualification, recusal, and withdrawal set forth respectively in the Jordanian Code of Civil Procedure and the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure apply to members of the Constitutional Court when adjudicating a plea of unconstitutionality. The paper highlights the suitability of applying these criteria to constitutional judges, designates the proper authority for evaluating recusal motions, and outlines the procedural requirements for filing such moves. To accomplish these objectives, the study employs a comparative and analytical methodology, facilitating a comprehensive analysis of all legislative texts pertinent to the topic. This approach highlights a basic problem: the standards for disqualification, recusal, or removal relevant to members of the Constitutional Court have not been clearly defined by the constitutional legislatures of Jordan or Egypt. The study finally presents several significant findings and recommendations. The primary requirement is to include explicit provisions in the Constitutional Court Law of both Jordan and Egypt that delineate the criteria for disqualification, recusal, and withdrawal of constitutional judges from adjudicating constitutional disputes, while differentiating these criteria from those relevant to ordinary judges. The distinctive features of constitutional adjudication with respect to subject matter, litigants, and procedural frameworks make it difficult to apply precise criteria that are normally relevant to regular judges. Consequently, this differentiation is vital.